David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 139 (2):165 - 224 (2004)
We construct logical languages which allow one to represent a variety of possible types of changes affecting the information states of agents in a multi-agent setting. We formalize these changes by defining a notion of epistemic program. The languages are two-sorted sets that contain not only sentences but also actions or programs. This is as in dynamic logic, and indeed our languages are not significantly more complicated than dynamic logics. But the semantics is more complicated. In general, the semantics of an epistemic program is what we call aprogram model. This is a Kripke model of ‘actions’,representing the agents' uncertainty about the current action in a similar way that Kripke models of ‘states’ are commonly used in epistemic logic to represent the agents' uncertainty about the current state of the system. Program models induce changes affecting agents' information, which we represent as changes of the state model, called epistemic updates. Formally, an update consists of two operations: the first is called the update map, and it takes every state model to another state model, called the updated model; the second gives, for each input state model, a transition relation between the states of that model and the states of the updated model. Each variety of epistemic actions, such as public announcements or completely private announcements to groups, gives what we call an action signature, and then each family of action signatures gives a logical language. The construction of these languages is the main topic of this paper. We also mention the systems that capture the valid sentences of our logics. But we defer to a separate paper the completeness proof
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Alexandru Baltag & Sonja Smets (2008). Probabilistic Dynamic Belief Revision. Synthese 165 (2):179 - 202.
Giuseppe Primiero (2009). An Epistemic Logic for Becoming Informed. Synthese 167 (2):363 - 389.
Patrick Allo (2013). The Many Faces of Closure and Introspection. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (1):91-124.
Nina Gierasimczuk (2009). Bridging Learning Theory and Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese 169 (2):371-384.
J. Gerbrandy (2007). The Surprise Examination in Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese 155 (1):21 - 33.
Similar books and articles
Johan van Benthem, Jelle Gerbrandy & Barteld Kooi (2009). Dynamic Update with Probabilities. Studia Logica 93 (1):67-96.
Arjen Hommersom, John-jules Meyer & Erik De vink (2004). Update Semantics of Security Protocols. Synthese 142 (2):229 - 267.
Swarup Mohalik & R. Ramanujam (2010). Automata for Epistemic Temporal Logic with Synchronous Communication. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 19 (4):451-484.
Hans P. Van Ditmarsch (2005). Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese 147 (2):229 - 275.
Hans P. Van Ditmarsch (2005). Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese 147 (2):229-275.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads46 ( #35,279 of 1,099,017 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #114,795 of 1,099,017 )
How can I increase my downloads?