Inexact Knowledge with Introspection
- 110 Downloads
Standard Kripke models are inadequate to model situations of inexact knowledge with introspection, since positive and negative introspection force the relation of epistemic indiscernibility to be transitive and euclidean. Correlatively, Williamson’s margin for error semantics for inexact knowledge invalidates axioms 4 and 5. We present a new semantics for modal logic which is shown to be complete for K45, without constraining the accessibility relation to be transitive or euclidean. The semantics corresponds to a system of modular knowledge, in which iterated modalities and simple modalities are not on a par. We show how the semantics helps to solve Williamson’s luminosity paradox, and argue that it corresponds to an integrated model of perceptual and introspective knowledge that is psychologically more plausible than the one defended by Williamson. We formulate a generalized version of the semantics, called token semantics, in which modalities are iteration-sensitive up to degree n and insensitive beyond n. The multi-agent version of the semantics yields a resource-sensitive logic with implications for the representation of common knowledge in situations of bounded rationality.
KeywordsInexact knowledge Epistemic logic Kripke semantics Token semantics Centered semantics Introspection Luminosity Vagueness Margin for error Common knowledge Bounded rationality
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Blackburn, P., de Rijke M., & Venema, Y. (1999). Modal Logic. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science 53, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 2.Bonnay, D., & Égré, P.: A non-standard semantics for inexact knowledge with introspection. In R. Parikh & S. Artemov (Eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2006 workshop rationality and knowledge.Google Scholar
- 3.Bonnay, D., & Égré, P. (2007). Vagueness and introspection. Prague Colloquium on Reasoning about Vagueness and Probability, manuscript, IJN.Google Scholar
- 4.Bonnay, D., & Égré, P. (2008) Margins for error in context. In M. Garcia-Carpintero & M. Këlbel (Eds.), Relative Truth (pp. 103–107). Oxford: Oxford UP.Google Scholar
- 5.van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2003). Lecture Notes on Dynamic Epistemic Logic, ESSLLI 2003, Vienna also available as Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Synthese Library, (Vol. 337). Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
- 6.Dokic, J., & Égré, P. (2008). Margin for error and the transparency of knowledge. Synthese doi:10.1007/s11229-007-9245-y.
- 7.Égré, P. (2008). Reliability, margin for error and self-knowledge. In D. Pritchard & V. Hendricks (Eds.), New waves in epistemology (pp. 215–250). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
- 8.Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 10.Halpern, J. (2004). Intransitivity and vagueness. In Proceedings of the ninth international conference on principles of knowledge representation and reasoning (KR 2004) (pp. 121–129).Google Scholar
- 12.Mongin, P. (2002). “Modèles d’Information et Théorie de la Connaissance”. Course Notes, Ecole Polytechnique, Feb. 2002, Laboratoire d’Econométrie.Google Scholar
- 13.Osborne, M. J., & Rubinstein, A. (1994). A course in game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- 14.Rubinstein, A. (1989). The electronic mail game: Strategic behavior under ‘almost common knowledge’. American Economic Review, 79, 385–391.Google Scholar
- 17.Williamson, T. (1994). Vagueness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 18.Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar