Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dung’s Argumentation is Essentially Equivalent to Classical Propositional Logic with the Peirce–Quine Dagger

  • Published:
Logica Universalis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we show that some versions of Dung’s abstract argumentation frames are equivalent to classical propositional logic. In fact, Dung’s attack relation is none other than the generalised Peirce–Quine dagger connective of classical logic which can generate the other connectives \({\neg, \wedge, \vee, \to}\) of classical logic. After establishing the above correspondence we offer variations of the Dung argumentation frames in parallel to variations of classical logic, such as resource logics, predicate logic, etc., etc., and create resource argumentation frames, predicate argumentation frames, etc., etc. We also offer the notion of logic proof as a geometrical walk along the nodes of a Dung network and thus we are able to offer a geometrical abstraction of the notion of inference based argumentation. Thus our paper is also a contribution to the question:

“What is a logical system”

in as much as it integrates logic with abstract argumentation networks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barringer H., Gabbay D., Woods J.: Temporal dynamics of argumentation networks. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds) Volume Dedicated to Joerg Siekmann. Mechanising Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS, vol. 2605, pp. 59–98. Springer, Berlin (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barringer, H., Gabbay, D., Woods, J.: Network modalities. In: Gross, G., Schulz, K.U. (eds.) Linguistics, Computer Science and Language Processing. Festschrift for Franz Guenthner on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, pp. 79–102. College Publications (2008)

  3. Bench-Capon T.J.M.: Persuasion in practical argument using value-based argumentation frameworks. J. Logic Comput. 13(3), 429–448 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Bench-Capon T.J.M., Atkinson K.: Abstract argumentation and values. In: Rahwan, I., Simari, G. (eds) Argumentation in AI, Chap. 3, pp. 45–64. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Besnard, P., Doutre, S.: Characterization of semantics for argument systems. In: Dubois, D., Welty, C., Williams, OM.-A (eds.) KR 2004, pp. 183–193. AAAI Press (2004)

  6. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. MIT Press (2008)

  7. Boella, G., Gabbay, D., van der Torre, L., Villata, S.: Support in Abstract Argumentation (n383) Expanded Version. This paper is an expansion of an earlier original paper under the same title published in 2010: In: Baroni, P., Cerutti, F., Giacomi, M., Simari, G. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument, COMMA 2010, pp. 111–122. IOS press (2010)

  8. Baroni P, Cerutti F., Giacomin M., Guida G.: Encompassing attacks to attacks in abstract argumentation frameworks. In: ECSQARU 2009, LNAI, vol. 5590, pp. 83–94. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brewka, G., Woltran, S.: Abstract dialectical frameworks. In: Proceedings of KR 2010. AAAI Press (2010)

  10. Brewka, G., Dunne, P., Woltran, S.: Relating the semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks and standard AFs. In: Proceedings of IJCAI-11, pp. 780–786 (2011)

  11. Caminada, M.: On the issue of reinstatement in argumentation. In: Fischer, M., van der Hoek, W., Konev, B., Lisitsa, A. (eds.) Logics in Artificial Intelligence: 10th European Conference, JELIA 2006. LNAI, vol. 4160, pp. 111–123. Springer, Berlin (2006)

  12. Caminada, M.: Semi-stable semantics. In: Dunne, P.E., Bench-Capon, T.J.M. (eds.) Computational Models of Argument. Proceedings of COMMA 2006, pp. 121–130. IOS Press (2006)

  13. Caminada, M., Wu, Y.: On the limitations of abstract argumentation. In: Proceedings of BNAIC 2011. http://users.numericable.lu/martincaminada/publications/BNAIC_limitations_abstract.pdf

  14. Caminada M., Amgoud L.: On the evaluation of argumentation formalisms. Artif. Intell. 171(5–6), 286–310 (2007)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Caminada M., Gabbay D.: A logical account of formal argumentation Studia Logica 93, 109–145 (2009)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Chalamish, M., Gabbay, D., Schild, U.: Intelligent evaluation of evidence using Wigmore diagrams. In: ICAIL-11, pp. 61–65 (2011)

  17. Chesnevar C., Maguitman A., Loui R.: Logical models of argument. ACM Comput. Surv. 32, 337–383 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dung P.M.: On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in non- monotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artif. Intell. 77, 321–357 (1995)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Gabbay, D.: Labelled Deductive Systems. Oxford University Press (1996)

  20. Gabbay, D.: Fibring Logics. Oxford University Press (1998)

  21. Gabbay D.: Modal provability foundations for argumentation networks. Studia Logica 93(2–3), 181–189 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. Gabbay D.: Fibering argumentation networks. Studia Logica 93(2–3), 231–296 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. Gabbay D.: Semantics for higher level attacks in extended argumentation fames. Part 1, overview–Studia Logica 39, 355379 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gabbay, D.: Equational Approach to Argumentation Networks (2011)

  25. Gabbay, D.: Meta-Logical Investigations in Argumentation Networks. Monograph. Springer

  26. Gabbay D., d’Avila Garcez A.S.: Logical modes of attack in argumentation networks. Studia Logica 93(2–3), 199–230 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Gamut, L.T.F.: Logic, Language, and Meaning. University of Chicago Press (1991)

  28. Grossi, D.: On the logic of abstract argumentation. In: AAMAS’10 (2010)

  29. Hunter, A.: Base logics in argumentation. In: Proceedings of COMMA 2010, pp. 275–286 (2010)

  30. Leisenring, A.C.: Mathematical logic and Hilbert’s epsilon-symbol. McDonald, London (1969)

  31. Metcalfe, G., Olivetti, N., Gabbay, D.: Proof Theory for Fuzzy Logics. Springer (2008)

  32. Modgil S.: Reasoning about preferences in argumentation frameworks. Artif. Intell. 173(9–10), 901–993 (2009)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  33. Peirce, C.S.: A Boolean algebra with one constant. In: Hartshorne, C., Weiss, P. (eds.) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 4, pp. 12–20. Harvard University Press (1931–1935)

  34. Prakken H.: An abstract framework for argumentation with structured arguments. Argum. Comput. 1(2), 93–124 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Price R.: The Stroke function in natural deduction. Zeitsehr. f.math. Logik und Grundlagen d. Math. 7, 117–128 (1961)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Seto, Y.: Proofs of some axioms by stroke function. In: Proc. Japan Acad. vol. 44, pp. 1024–1026 (1968)

  37. Sheffer H.M.: A set of five independent postulates for Boolean algebras, with application to logical constants. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 14, 481–488 (1913)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  38. Strasser S.: Towards the proof-theoretic unification of Dung’s argumentation framework: an adaptive logic approach. J. Logic Comput. 21, 133–156 (2011)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel

    Dov M. Gabbay

  2. King’s College London, London, UK

    Dov M. Gabbay

  3. University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    Dov M. Gabbay

Authors
  1. Dov M. Gabbay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dov M. Gabbay.

Additional information

Research done under ISF project “Integrating Logic and Network Reasoning”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gabbay, D.M. Dung’s Argumentation is Essentially Equivalent to Classical Propositional Logic with the Peirce–Quine Dagger. Log. Univers. 5, 255–318 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-011-0036-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11787-011-0036-3

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010)

Keywords

Search

Navigation