Turing-Completeness of Dynamics in Abstract Persuasion Argumentation Ryuta Arisaka arxiv:1903.07837v1 [cs.lo] 19 Mar 2019 ryutaarisaka@gmail.com Abstract. Abstract Persuasion Argumentation (APA) is a dynamic argumentation formalism that extends Dung argumentation with persuasion relations. In this work, we show through two-counter Minsky machine encoding that APA dynamics is Turing-complete. 1 Introduction Abstract Persuasion Argumentation (APA) [1] is a dynamic argumentation formalism that extends Dung argumentation [2] with persuasion relations. Not only can an argument in APA attack an argument ust in Dung argumentation, it can also induce an argument, or convert an argument into another argument. Dung argumentation is a state in APA, which the persuasion relations may modify into other states. Transitions at each state are effected with respect to a selected subset of the arguments in the state. The subset - termed a reference set [1] - provides defence against external persuaders ust as against external attackers. From the set of all the dynamic modifications by external persuaders the reference set does not defend against, any number of them may be executed simultaneously into another state. In this work, we study the computational capability of APA dynamics, its relation to Turing machines, specifically. The investigation is useful: as APA is a conservative extension of Dung argumentation, the persuasions specified similarly to attacks, Turing-completeness of APA dynamics induced by persuasions would mean that drastic departure from the intuitive Dung-based theoretical framework for dealing with dynamics would not be necessary. We settle this research problem positively through two-counter Minsky machine [3] encoding.
2 Technical Backgrounds Two-counter Minsky machines. Let N be the class of natural numbers including 0, whose member is referred to by n with or without a subscript and a superscript, and let Q be a finite set of abstract entities called states, whose member is referred to by q with or without a subscript. A twocounter (non-deterministic) Minsky machine [3] can be defined to be a tuple (Q, n 1, n 2,, q 0, q f, I) with: n 1, n 2 N; : (Q\ {q f ) N N Q N N; and I : (Q\{q f ) {1, 2 Q (Q {ɛ), with ɛ Q. q 0 is called the initial state, and q f is called the halting state. Each member of I is called an instruction. For every q (Q\{q f ), there is some (q, i, q 2, u) I for i {1, 2, q 2 Q, u Q {ɛ. is specifically defined to be such that ((q 1, n 1, n 2 )) is: (q 2, n 1 + 1, n 2 ) if (q 1, 1, q 2, ɛ) I. (q 2, n 1, n 2 + 1) if (q 1, 2, q 2, ɛ) I. (q 3, n 1 1, n 2 ) if (q 1, 1, q 2, q 3 ) I and n 1 > 0. 1 (q 3, n 1, n 2 1) if (q 1, 2, q 2, q 3 ) I and n 2 > 0. (q 2, n 1, n 2 ) if (q 1, 1, q 2, q 3 ) I and n 1 = 0. (q 2, n 1, n 2 ) if (q 1, 2, q 2, q 3 ) I and n 2 = 0. Minsky machine is said to halt on (n 1, n 2 ) iff there are some n x, n 1, n 2 N such that nx ((q 0, n 1, n 2 )) = (q f, n 1, n 2). APA: Abstract Persuasion Argumentation. Let A be a class of abstract entities that we understand as arguments, whose member is referred to by a with or without a subscript and a superscript, and whose subset is referred to by A with or without a subscript and a superscript. APA [1] is a tuple (A, R, R p, A 0, ) for A 0 A; R : A A; R p : A (A {ɛ) A; and : 2 A (2 (A,R) 2 (A,R) ). It extends Dung argumentation (A, R) [2] conservatively. (a 1, ) R is drawn graphically as a 1 ; (a 1, ɛ, ) R p is drawn graphically as a 1 ; and (a 1,, ) R p is drawn graphically as a 1 a 1. Let F (A 1 ) for some A 1 A denote (A 1, R (A 1 A 1 )), F (A 1 ) is said to be a state. F (A 0 ) is called the initial state in particular. In any state F (A x ), any member of A x is said to be visible in F (A x ), while the others are said to be invisible in F (A x ). A state F (A 1 ) is said to 1 and instead of and is used in this and all the other papers to be written by the author when the context in which the word appears strongly indicates truth-value comparisons. It follows the semantics of classical logic conunction. 2
be reachable iff F (A 1 ) = F (A 0 ) or else there is some F (A 2 ) such that F (A 2 ) is reachable and that F (A 2 ) Ax F (A 1 ) for some A x A called a reference set for the transition. a 1 A is said to attack A in a state F (A 1 ) iff a 1, A 1 and (a 1, ) R. For a 1,, A, a 1 is said to be: inducing in a state F (A 1 ) with respect to a reference set A x A iff a 1 A 1 and (a 1, ɛ, ) R p and a 1 is not attacked by any member of A x in F (A 1 ); and converting into in a state F (A 1 ) with respect to a reference set A x A iff a 1, A 1 and (a 1,, ) R p and a 1 is not attacked by any member of A x in F (A 1 ). The set of all members of R p that are inducing or converting in F (A 1 ) with respect to a reference set A x A are denoted by Γ Ax F (A 1 ). Interpretation of. The interpretation given of in [1] is: (1) any subset Γ of Γ Ax F (A 1 ) can be simultaneously considered for transition for F (A 1 ) into some F (A 2 ); (2) if Γ Γ Ax F (A 1 ) is considered for transition into F (A 2 ), then: (2a) if either (a 1, ɛ, ) or (a 1,, ) is in Γ, then A 2 ; (2b) if (a 1,, ) is in Γ, then is not in A 2 unless it is udged to be in A 2 by (2a); and (2c) if a A 1, then a A 2 unless it is udged not in A 2 by (2b). In other words, for A 1 A and for Γ R p, let neg A 1 (Γ ) be {a x A 1 a 1, A 1.(a 1, a x, ) Γ, and let pos A 1 (Γ ) be { A a 1, α A 1 {ɛ.(a 1, α, ) Γ. For A x A, F (A 1 ) and F (A 2 ), we have: (A x, F (A 1 ), F (A 2 )), alternatively F (A 1 ) Ax F (A 2 ), iff there is some Γ Γ Ax F (A 1 ) R p such that A 2 = (A 1 \neg A 1 (Γ )) pos A 1 (Γ ). State-wise acceptability semantics. We touch upon state-wise APA acceptability semantics, only briefly, since they are not required in this work. A 1 A is said to be conflict-free in a (reachable) state F (A a ) iff no member of A 1 attacks a member of A 1 in F (A a ). A 1 A is said to defend a A in F (A a ) iff, if a A a, then both: (1) every a u A a attacking a in F (A a ) is attacked by at least one member of A 1 in F (A a ) (counter-attack); and (2) there is no state F (A b ) such that both F (A a ) A 1 F (A b ) and a A b at once (no elimination). A 1 A is said to be proper in F (A a ) iff A 1 A a. A 1 A is said to be: admissible in F (A a ) iff A 1 is conflict-free, proper and defends every member of A 1 in F (A a ); and complete in 3
F (A a ) iff A 1 is admissible and includes every a A it defends in F (A a ). 3 Encoding of Minsky Machines into APA Assume a two-counter Minsky machine (Q, n 1, n 2,, q 0, q f, I). For the encoding into APA, assume inective functions: σ 1, σ 2 : N A; σ Q : Q A; σ I, σ Ic : I A, such that for any two distinct x, y {1, 2, Q, I, Ic, range(σ x ) range(σ y ) =. Assume A to be the set that satisfies all the following. A is naturally unbounded. σ 1 (n), σ 2 (n) A iff n N. σ Q (q) A iff q Q. σ I (x), σ Ic (x) A iff x I. We denote the subset of A consisting of: all σ 1 (n) by A 1 ; all σ 2 (n) by A 2 ; all σ Q (q) by A Q ; all σ I (x) by A I ; and all σ Ic (x) by A Ic. Assume R =. Assume R p as the set intersection of all the sets that satisfy: 1. (σ I (x), σ Q (q 1 ), σ Ic (x)) R p for every x (q 1, i, q 2, u) for some i {1, 2, q 1 (Q\{q f ), q 2 Q, u Q {ɛ and for every n. 2. (σ Ic (x), σ i (n), σ i (n + 1)) R p for every x (q 1, i, q 2, ɛ) I for some q 1 (Q\{q f ), q 2 Q, i {1, 2, and for every n. 3. (σ Ic (x), σ i (n), σ i (n 1)) R p for every x (q 1, i, q 2, q 3 ) I for some q 1 (Q\{q f ), q 2, q 3 Q, i {1, 2, and for every n 0. 4. (σ i (n), σ Ic (x), σ Q (q 2 )) R p for every x (q 1, i, q 2, ɛ) I for some q 1 (Q\{q f ), q 2 Q, i {1, 2, and for every n. 5. (σ i (n), σ Ic (x), σ Q (q 3 )) R p for every x (q 1, i, q 2, q 3 ) I for some q 1 (Q\{q f ), q 2, q 3 Q, i {1, 2, and for every n 0. 6. (σ i (0), σ Ic (x), σ Q (q 2 )) R p for every x (q 1, i, q 2, q 3 ) I for some q 1 (Q\{q f ), q 2, q 3 Q, i {1, 2. Assume A 0 to be {σ 1 (n 1 ), σ 2 (n 2 ), σ Q (q 0 ) x I σi (x). Theorem 1 (Turing-completeness). Such (A, R, R p, A 0, ) simulates (Q, n 1, n 2,, q 0, q f, I). Proof. By induction on k of k ((q 1, n 1, n 2 )) = (q 2, n 1, n 2), we show that there is a corresponding APA transition F (A I σ Q (q 1 ) σ 1 (n 1 ) σ 2 (n 2 )) Ax Ax F (A I σ Q (q 2 ) σ 1 (n 1) σ 2 (n 2)). Since R =, it is not important what A x here is. If there is no 0 < k, then q 1 = q f, and there is no APA state F (A 2 ) such that F (A I σ Q (q f ) σ 1 (n 1 ) σ 2 (n 2 ))) Ax F (A 2 ), for: (1) every 4
a A I is converting only members of A Q \{σ Q (q f ) in any state; (2) σ i (n i ), i {1, 2, is not converting any member of A I, of A Q, of A 1 or of A 2 ; (3) no member of A Q is converting any member of A; and (4) every member of R p is a conversion. For inductive cases, assume that the correspondence holds for any k. We show by cases that it holds for k = + 1 as well. a 5 a 5 a 5 a 5 a 5 a 5 A a 0 a 1 B a 0 a 1 C a 0 a 1 Case 1 (q 1, n 1, n 2 ) (q 2, n 3, n 4 ) (q 3, n 3 +1, n 4 ): By induction hypothesis, we have F (A I σ Q (q 1 ) σ 1 (n 1 ) σ 2 (n 2 )) Ax Ax F (A I σ Q (q 2 ) σ 1 (n 3 ) σ 2 (n 4 )) F (A 1 ). A relevant snippet of the APA for the (+1)-th Minsky machine computation is shown in A. All visible arguments in F (A 1 ) are bordered. Assume x (q 2, 1, q 3, ɛ), a 0 = σ Q (q 2 ), a 1 = σ Q (q 3 ), = σ I (x), = σ Ic (x), a 5 = σ 1 (n 1 ), and = σ 1 (n 1 + 1). Then, a 0 and a 1 represent states of Minsky machine, a 5 and represent the first counter s content, while is an auxiliary operational APA argument. By the construction of the APA, we have (, a 0, ) R p. Furthermore, among all a A Q, only a 0 is in F (A 1 ). There then exists a transition: F (A 1 ) Ax F ((A 1 \{a 0 ) { ) F (A 2 ) ( B ). By the construction of the APA, among all a A 1, only a 5 is in F (A 1 ), which is true also in F (A 2 ). Of all APA arguments converting (converted by) a 5 in F (A 2 ), only is in F (A 2 ). There exists a APA transition F (A 2 ) Ax F ((A 1 \{, a 5 ) {a 1, ) F (A 3 ) ( C ). However, A 3 = A I σ Q (q 3 ) σ 1 (n 1 + 1) σ 2 (n 2 ), as required. Case 2 (q 1, n 1, n 2 ) (q 2, n 3, n 4 ) (q 3, n 3, n 4 + 1): similar. Case 3 (q 1, n 1, n 2 ) (q 2, n 3, n 4 ) (q 4, n 3 1, n 4 ): By induction hypothesis, we have F (A I σ Q (q 1 ) σ 1 (n 1 ) σ 2 (n 2 )) Ax Ax F (A I σ Q (q 2 ) σ 1 (n 3 ) σ 2 (n 4 )) F (A 1 ). A relevant snippet of the APA for the ( + 1)-th Minsky machine computation is as shown in D. 5
D a 5 a 5 a 0 a 1 E a 5 a 5 a 0 a 1 F a 5 a 5 a 0 a 1 Assume x (q 2, 1, q 3, q 4 ), a 0 = σ Q (q 2 ), a 1 = σ Q (q 3 ), = σ Q (q 4 ), = σ I (x), = σ Ic (x), a 5 = σ 1 (n 1 ), and = σ 1 (n 1 1). n 0, and in D, n is in fact assumed to be 1, so that = σ 1 (0), purely due to the space available in figure. a 0, a 1 and represent states of two-counter Minsky machine, a 5 and represent the first counter s content, while is an auxiliary operational APA argument. There exist a sequence of APA transitions into E, and then into F, as required. Similar when 1 < n. Case 4 (q 1, n 1, n 2 ) (q 2, n 3, n 4 ) (q 4, n 3, n 4 1): similar. Case 5 (q 1, n 1, n 2 ) (q 2, 0, n 4 ) (q 3, 0, n 4 ): A relevant snippet is shown in G, where = σ 1 (0), and there exist APA transitions into H, and then into I, as required. G a 5 a 5 a 0 a 1 H a 5 a 5 a 0 a 1 I a 5 a 5 a 0 a 1 Case 6 (q 1, n 1, n 2 ) (q 2, n 3, 0) (q 3, n 3, 0): similar. Conclusion. We proved Turing-completeness of APA dynamics. References 1. R. Arisaka and K. Satoh. Abstract Argumentation / Persuasion / Dynamics. In PRIMA, pages 331 343, 2018. 2. P. M. Dung. On the Acceptability of Arguments and Its Fundamental Role in Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Logic Programming, and n-person Games. Artificial Intelligence, 77(2):321 357, 1995. 3. M. L. Minsky. Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines (Automatic Computation). Prentice Hall, 5th edition, 1967. 6