The game is based on dialogs between ExistsP and ForAllP. ForAllP tries to "trick" ExistsP into an inconsistency. But this does not mean that the claim is false. The goal of the dialogs is showing inconsistency, not logical falsity.
refute(C,ExistsP,ForAllP) protocol ForAllP provides instance x ExistsP solves instance x ruturning a solution y if p(x,y) ExistsP wins (successful defense; refute returns false) else ForAllP wins (successful refutation; refute returns true; +1 ForAllP)Player ForAllP has tricked player ExistsP into contradicting itself. Therefore ForAllP wins a point.
Agreement is reduced to refutation.
agree(C,ExistsP,ForAllP) protocol refute(C,ForAllP,ExistsP) if p(x,y) agreement is successful (nobody wins) else unsuccessful (+1 ExistsP)Player ForAllP agreed with claim C but ExistsP (now in opposer role) tricked ForAllP into a contradiction (ForAllP could not defend). Therefore ExistsP wins a point.
refute(C,ExistsP,ForAllP) protocol ExistsP provides instance x ForAllP solves instance x ruturning a solution y if !p(x,y) ExistsP wins (successful defense) else ForAllP wins (successful refutation; +1 ForAllP)Agreement is reduced to refutation.
agree(C,ExistsP,ForAllP) protocol refute(C,ForAllP,ExistsP) if !p(x,y) agreement is successful (nobody wins) else unsuccessful (+1 ExistsP)
There is a function quality(x,y) which returns the quality of solution y for instance x. For the first claim form, the function quality(x,y) assumes only two values, say 0 and 1. p(x,y) = (quality(x,y) = 1)
refute(C,ExistsP,ForAllP) protocol ForAllP provides instance x ExistsP solves instance x ruturning a solution y if quality(x,y)>=q0 ExistsP wins (successful defense) else ForAllP wins (successful refutation; +1 ForAllP)Agreement and strengthening are reduced to refutation.
agree(C,ExistsP,ForAllP) protocol refute(C,ForAllP,ExistsP) if quality(x,y)>=q0 agreement is successful else unsuccessful (+1 ExistsP)
strengthen(C,C',ExistsP,ForAllP) where C'.q0 > C.q0 protocol refute(C',ForAllP,ExistsP) if quality(x,y)>=C'.q0 strengthening is successful else unsuccessful (+1 ExistsP)Player ForAllP claimed a stronger claim but failed to defend the stronger claim against ExistsP. ForAllP contradicts itself. Therefore ExistsP gains a point.
refute(C,ExistsP,ForAllP) protocol ExistsP provides instance x ForAllP solves instance x ruturning a solution y if quality(x,y) < q0 ExistsP wins (successful defense) else ForAllP wins (successful refutation; +1 ForAllP)Agreement and strengthening are reduced to refutation.
agree(C,ExistsP,ForAllP) protocol refute(C,ForAllP,ExistsP) if quality(x,y) < q0 agreement is successful else unsuccessful (+1 ExistsP)
strengthen(C,C',ExistsP,ForAllP) where C'.q0 < C.q0 protocol refute(C',ForAllP,ExistsP) if quality(x,y) < C'.q0 strengthening is successful else unsuccessful (+1 ExistsP)