Theory and Decision

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 107–124

Awareness and partitional information structures

  • Salvatore Modica
  • Aldo Rustichini
Article

Abstract

This is the first of two papers where we present a formal model of unawareness. We contrast unawareness with certainty and uncertainty. A subject is certain of something when he knows that thing; he is uncertain when he does not know it, but he knows he does not: he is consciously uncertain. On the other hand, he isunaware of something when he does not know it, and he does not know he does not know, and so on ad infinitum: he does not perceive, does not have in mind, the object of knowledge. The opposite of unawareness is awareness, which includes certainty and uncertainty.

This paper has three main purposes. First, we formalize the concept of awareness, and introduce a symmetry axiom which states that a subject can be aware of something, ϕ say, if and only if he is aware of its negation not-ϕ; in other words, that ϕ and not-ϕ are perceived together, or neither is. We then derive the basic properties of awareness.

The second purpose is to prove a different axiomatic characterization, based on the concept of awareness of the system which underlies the model of information with partitional structures (known asS5).

The third purpose of this paper is to show that without a substantial weakening of the rules of inferences normally assumed in modal logic a satisfactory model of unawareness, which includes the symmetry axiom, is impossible. This alternative approach is developed in a second paper by the same authors.

Keywords

awareness negative introspection Kripke structures modal propositional logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    Aumann, R. A.: 1976, ‘Agreeing to Disagree’,The Annals of Statistics 4, 1236–1239.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Brown, D. and Geanakoplos, J.: 1988, Common Knowledge without Partitions, unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Chellas, B.: 1980,Modal Logic: an Introduction, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Fagin, R. and Halpern, J.: 1988; ‘Belief, Awareness, and Limited Reasoning’,Artificial Intelligence 34, 39–76.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Geanakoplos, J.: 1989, Game Theory without Partitions, and Applications to Speculation and Consensus; Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper no. 914.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Kleene, Stephen C.: 1967,Introduction to Metamathematics, North Holland.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Lismont, L. and Mongin, P.: 1994, ‘On the Logic of Common Belief and Common Knowledge’,Theory and Decision 37, 75–106 (this issue).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Milgrom, P. and Stokey, N.: 1982, ‘Information, Trade and Common Knowledge’,Journal of Economic Theory 26, 17–27.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Modica, S. and Rustichini, A.: 1994, Unawareness: a Formal Theory of Unforeseen Contingencies, CORE DP.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Rubinstein, A. and Wolinsky, A.: 1990, ‘On the Logic of “Agreeing to Disagree” Type Results’,Journal of Economic Theory 51, 184–193.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Samet, D.: 1990, ‘Ignoring Ignorance and Agreeing to Disagree’,Journal of Economic Theory 52, 190–207.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    van Dalen, D.: 1983,Logic and Structure (2nd ed.); Springer-Verlag; New York-Berlin-Tokio.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Salvatore Modica
    • 1
  • Aldo Rustichini
    • 2
  1. 1.Università di PalermoItaly
  2. 2.CORELouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations