Trial and error mathematics: Dialectical systems and completions of theories

This paper is part of a project that is based on the notion of a dialectical system, introduced by Magari as a way of capturing trial and error mathematics. In Amidei et al. (2016, Rev. Symb. Logic, 9, 1–26) and Amidei et al. (2016, Rev. Symb. Logic, 9, 299–324), we investigated the expressive and computational power of dialectical systems, and we compared them to a new class of systems, that of quasi-dialectical systems, that enrich Magari’s systems with a natural mechanism of revision. In the present paper we consider a third class of systems, that of p-dialectical systems, that naturally combine features coming from the two other cases. We prove several results about p-dialectical systems and the sets that they represent. Then we focus on the completions of first order theories. In doing so, we consider systems with connectives, i.e. systems that encode the rules of classical logic. We show that any consistent system with connectives represents the completion of a given theory. We prove that dialectical and q-dialectical systems coincide with respect to the completions that they can represent. Yet, p-dialectical systems are more powerful; we exhibit a p-dialectical system representing a completion of Peano Arithmetic that is neither dialectical nor q-dialectical.

[1]  E. Mark Gold,et al.  Language Identification in the Limit , 1967, Inf. Control..

[2]  J.F.A.K. van Benthem,et al.  Logic in Philosophy , 2005 .

[3]  Roberto Magari,et al.  Su certe teorie non enumerabili , 1974 .

[4]  A. Turing On Computable Numbers, with an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem. , 1937 .

[5]  Hans Rott,et al.  Two Dogmas of Belief Revision , 2000 .

[6]  Hilary Putnam,et al.  Trial and error predicates and the solution to a problem of Mostowski , 1965, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[7]  Andrea Sorbi,et al.  TRIAL AND ERROR MATHEMATICS I: DIALECTICAL AND QUASIDIALECTICAL SYSTEMS , 2016, The Review of Symbolic Logic.

[8]  Craig Smorynski Fifty years of self-reference in arithmetic , 1981, Notre Dame J. Formal Log..

[9]  R. Soare Recursively enumerable sets and degrees , 1987 .

[10]  I. Lakatos,et al.  Proofs and Refutations: Frontmatter , 1976 .

[11]  R. G. Jeroslow,et al.  Experimental logics and Δinf2sup0- theories , 1975, J. Philos. Log..

[12]  Andrea Sorbi,et al.  TRIAL AND ERROR MATHEMATICS II: DIALECTICAL SETS AND QUASIDIALECTICAL SETS, THEIR DEGREES, AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE CLASS OF LIMIT SETS , 2016, The Review of Symbolic Logic.

[13]  Henry Prakken,et al.  Introduction to structured argumentation , 2014, Argument Comput..

[14]  Franco Montagna,et al.  Logic and probabilistic systems , 1996, Arch. Math. Log..

[15]  M. Kaså,et al.  Truth and Proof in the Long Run: Essays on Trial and-Error Logics , 2017 .

[16]  Annika Siders From Stenius' Consistency Proof to SCHüTTE's Cut Elimination for ω-Arithmetic , 2016, Rev. Symb. Log..

[17]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Revisions of Knowledge Systems Using Epistemic Entrenchment , 1988, TARK.

[18]  Chris Reed,et al.  Lakatos-style collaborative mathematics through dialectical, structured and abstract argumentation , 2017, Artif. Intell..

[19]  Phan Minh Dung,et al.  On the Acceptability of Arguments and its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming and n-Person Games , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[20]  Clement F. Kent,et al.  The relation of A to Prov ˹A˺ in the Lindenbaum sentence algebra , 1973, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[21]  I. Lakatos PROOFS AND REFUTATIONS (I)*† , 1963, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[22]  J. Sprenger,et al.  The Logic of Explanatory Power , 2011, Philosophy of Science.

[23]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.