Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 183–216

Temporal Languages for Epistemic Programs

Article

Abstract

This paper adds temporal logic to public announcement logic (PAL) and dynamic epistemic logic (DEL). By adding a previous-time operator to PAL, we express in the language statements concerning the muddy children puzzle and sum and product. We also express a true statement that an agent’s beliefs about another agent’s knowledge flipped twice, and use a sound proof system to prove this statement. Adding a next-time operator to PAL, we provide formulas that express that belief revision does not take place in PAL. We also discuss relationships between announcements and the new knowledge agents thus acquire; such relationships are related to learning and to Fitch’s paradox. We also show how inverse programs and hybrid logic each can be used to help determine whether or not an arbitrary structure represents the play of a game. We then add a past-time operator to DEL, and discuss the importance of adding yet another component to the language in order to prove completeness.

Keywords

Dynamic epistemic logic Epistemic logic Games Modal logic Public announcement logic Temporal logic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Balbiani, P., Baltag, A., van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A., Hoshi, T., & de Lima, T. (2007). What can we achieve by arbitrary announcements? A dynamic take on Fitch’s knowability. Proceedings of Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge.Google Scholar
  2. Baltag A., Moss L. (2004). Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese 139, 165–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baltag, A., Moss, L., & Solecki, S. (2003). Logics for epistemic actions: Completeness, decidability, expressivity. ms. Indiana University.Google Scholar
  4. van Benthem, J. (2007). What one may come to know. ms. Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  5. Blackburn P., Seligman J. (1995). Hybrid logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 4, 251–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brogaard, B., & Salerno, J. (2002). Fitch’s paradox of knowability. Stanford Electronic Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/
  7. van Ditmarsch, H. P., Ruan, J., & Verbrugge, L. C. (2007). Sum and product in dynamic epistemic logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, to appear.Google Scholar
  8. Gerbrandy, D. (1998). Bisimulations on Planet Kripke. PhD Thesis, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Plaza, J. (1989). Logics of public communications. Proceedings of 4th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems.Google Scholar
  10. Sack, J. (2007). Adding temporal logic to dynamic epistemic Logic. PhD Thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  11. Sack, J. (2007). Logic for update products and steps into the past. ms. California State University Long Beach.Google Scholar
  12. Yap, A. (2005). Product update and looking backward. ms. Stanford University. Also atwww.illc.uva.nl/lgc/papers/bms-temporal.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsCalifornia State University Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations