Team building in dependence

Hintikka and Sandu's Independence-Friendly Logic was introduced as a logic for partially ordered quantification, in which the independence of (existential) quantifiers from previous (universal) quantifiers is written by explicit syntax. It was originally given a semantics by games of imperfect information; Hodges then gave a (necessarily) second-order Tarskian semantics. More recently, Vaananen (2007) has proposed that the many curious features of IF logic can be better understood in his Dependence Logic, in which the (in)dependence of variables is stated in atomic formula, rather than by changing the definition of quantifier; he gives semantics in Tarskian form, via imperfect information games, and via a routine second-order perfect information game. He then defines Team Logic, where classical negation is added to the mix, resulting in a full second-order expressive logic. He remarks that no game semantics appears possible (other than by playing at second order). In this article, we explore an alternative approach to game semantics for DL, where we avoid imperfect information, yet stay locally apparently first-order, by sweeping the second-order information into longer games (infinite games in the case of countable models). Extending the game to Team Logic is not possible in standard games, but we conjecture a move to transfinite games may achieve a 'natural' game for Team Logic.

[1]  Stephan Kreutzer,et al.  The Complexity of Independence-Friendly Fixpoint Logic , 2005, CSL.

[2]  Merlijn Sevenster,et al.  Independence-Friendly Logic - a Game-Theoretic Approach , 2011, London Mathematical Society lecture note series.

[3]  Sibylle B. Fröschle,et al.  Independence-Friendly Modal Logic and True Concurrency , 2002, Nord. J. Comput..

[4]  Pietro Galliani,et al.  On Dependence Logic , 2013, Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics.

[5]  Samson Abramsky,et al.  From IF to BI: a tale of dependence and separation , 2011, ArXiv.

[6]  Gabriel Sandu,et al.  On the logic of informational independence and its applications , 1993, J. Philos. Log..

[7]  H. Enderton Finite Partially-Ordered Quantifiers , 1970 .

[8]  J. Hintikka A Revolution in Logic , 1998 .

[9]  Marc Pauly,et al.  Logic for social software , 2000 .

[10]  Colin Stirling,et al.  Modal mu-calculi , 2007, Handbook of Modal Logic.

[11]  Wilfrid Hodges,et al.  Compositional Semantics for a Language of Imperfect Information , 1997, Log. J. IGPL.

[12]  Frank Wolter,et al.  Handbook of Modal Logic , 2007, Studies in logic and practical reasoning.

[13]  Wilbur John Walkoe,et al.  Finite Partially-Ordered Quantification , 1970, J. Symb. Log..

[14]  R. Schindler Descriptive Set Theory , 2014 .

[15]  Colin Stirling,et al.  Modal Mu-Calculi , 2001 .

[16]  Julian C. Bradfield,et al.  The Modal µ-Calculus Alternation Hierarchy is Strict , 1998, Theor. Comput. Sci..

[17]  Shirley Dex,et al.  JR 旅客販売総合システム(マルス)における運用及び管理について , 1991 .

[18]  Heribert Vollmer,et al.  Dependence Logic: Theory and Applications (Dagstuhl Seminar 13071) , 2013, Dagstuhl Reports.

[19]  J. C. Braddeld,et al.  Independence: Logics and Concurrency , 2000, CSL.