PL EN


2009 | 16(29) | 217-226
Article title

CYCLIC PROOFS IN ARGUMENTATION. THE CASE OF EXCLUDING BORIS PASTERNAK FROM THE ASSOCIATION OFWRITERS OF THE USSR

Selected contents from this journal
Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
In the paper we consider some principal notions of non-well-founded proof theory in argumentation. This theory is based on the assumption of Anti-Foundation Axiom that every graph tree has a unique decoration. A decoration of a graph is an assignment of a derivable formula to each node of the graph in such a way that the premisses of the root-derivable formula assigned to a node are the derivable formulas assigned to the children of that node. According to Anti-Foundation Axiom in proof theory, cyclic graph and infinite graph trees have a decoration too. This means that there are cyclic and infinite proof trees. The natural interpretation of cyclic proofs in argumentation is their consideration as confirmation procedure, where premisses are compatible with a derivable statement, but they do not prove this in the standard meaning. As model example we use the case of excluding Boris Pasternak from the Association of Writers of the USSR.
Year
Issue
Pages
217-226
Physical description
Document type
ARTICLE
Contributors
author
  • Mary Dzisko, Belarusian State University of Informatics and Radioelectronics, Minsk, Belarus
References
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
CEJSH db identifier
11PLAAAA10159
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.0d17fd5c-88cf-31d0-bd14-e928506d5c39
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.