@incollection {D:shahid,
	title = {Towards a Dialogic Interpretation of Dynamic Proofs},
	booktitle = {Dialogues, Logics and Other Strange Things. Essays in Honour of {S}hahid {R}ahman},
	year = {2009},
	pages = {27{\textendash}51},
	publisher = {College Publications},
	address = {London},
	abstract = {<p>The main result presented in this paper concerns a dialogic or game-theoretical interpretation of dynamic proofs. Dynamic proofs in themselves do not form a demonstration of the derivability of their last formula from a given premise set. Apart from the proof, such a demonstration requires a specific metalevel argument. In a natural and appealing form, the metalevel argument is phrased in terms of the existence of a winning strategy for the proponent.\par The aforementioned point is presented in terms of an approach that is in a sense Hilbertian and anti-Tarskian: the characterization of logical inference in terms of types of proofs, rather than in terms of properties of the consequence relation.</p>},
	author = {Batens, Diderik},
	editor = {D{\'e}gremont, C{\'e}dric and Keiff, Laurent and R{\"u}ckert, Helge}
}
