Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 158, Issue 2, pp 181–187 | Cite as

Comments to ‘logics of public communications’

  • Hans P. van DitmarschEmail author
Article

Take your average publication on the dynamics of knowledge. In one of its first paragraphs you will probably encounter a phrase like “a logic of public announcements was first proposed by Plaza in 1989 (Plaza 1989).” Tracking down this publication seems easy, because googling its title ‘Logics of Public Communications’ takes you straight to Jan Plaza’s website where it is online available in the author’s own version, including, on that page, very helpful and full bibliographic references to the proceedings in which it originally appeared. Those proceedings are then somewhat harder to find. In fact, I have never seen them. Unfortunately, for the research community, Plaza’s work has never been followed up by a journal version. I am very grateful to the editor Wiebe van der Hoek of the journal ‘Knowledge, Rationality, and Action’ to correct this omission.

Plaza’s work is reprinted as such, without an update encompassing more than fifteen additional years of research in this area. This commentary aims to provide some background to bridge that gap.

Keywords

Modal Logic Common Knowledge Multiagent System Belief Revision Public Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón C., Gärdenfors P., Makinson D. (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aucher, G. (2003). A combined system for update logic and belief revision. Master’s thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. ILLC report MoL-2003-03.Google Scholar
  3. Balbiani, P., van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A., & Lima, T. D. (2006). What becomes true after arbitrary announcements. Computer Science technical report OUCS-2006-06, University of Otago.Google Scholar
  4. Baltag, A., & Moss, L. (2004). Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese, 139, 165–224. Knowledge, Rationality & Action 1–60.Google Scholar
  5. Baltag, A., Moss, L., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In I. Gilboa (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 98), pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
  6. Baltag, A., & Smets, S. (2006). Dynamic belief revision over multi-agent plausibility models. Proceedings of LOFT 2006 (7th Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory).Google Scholar
  7. Chandy, K., & Misra, J. (1985). How processes learn. In PODC ’85: Proceedings of the fourth annual ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing (pp. 204–214). New York, NY, USA: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. de Rijke, M. (1994). Meeting some neighbours. In J. van Eijck, & A. Visser (Eds.), Logic and information flow (pp. 170–195). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Demolombe R., Herzig A., Varzinczak I. (2003) Regression in modal logic. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 13(2): 165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fagin R., Halpern J. (1994) Reasoning about knowledge and probability. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery: 41(2): 340–367Google Scholar
  11. Fagin R., Halpern J., Moses Y., Vardi M. (1995) Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Fine K. (1970) Propositional quantifiers in modal logic. Theoria 3: 336–346Google Scholar
  13. Freudenthal H. (1969) (formulation of the Sum-and-Product problem). Nieuw Archief voor Wiskunde 3(17): 152Google Scholar
  14. Gerbrandy, J. (1999). Bisimulations on planet Kripke. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-1999-01.Google Scholar
  15. Gerbrandy J., Gerbrandy W.J., Groeneveld W. (1997) Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 6: 147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Groenendijk J., Stokhof M. (1991) Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy 14(1): 39–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Groeneveld, W. (1995). Logical investigations into dynamic semantics. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-1995-18.Google Scholar
  18. Halpern J. (2003) Reasoning about uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  19. Halpern, J., & Moses, Y. (1984). Knowledge and common knowledge in a distributed environment. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM symposium on principles of distributed computing (PODS) (pp. 50–61). A newer version appeared in the Journal of the ACM, vol. 37:3, 1990, pp. 549–587.Google Scholar
  20. Jaspars, J. (1994). Calculi for constructive communication. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tilburg. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-1994-4, ITK Dissertation Series 1994-1.Google Scholar
  21. Kooi, B. (2003). Knowledge, chance, and change. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2003-01.Google Scholar
  22. Landman, F. (1986). Towards a theory of information. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Laverny, N. (2006) Révision, mises à jour et planification en logique doxastique graduelle’. Ph.D. thesis, Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse (IRIT), Toulouse, France.Google Scholar
  24. Liu, F. (2004). Dynamic variations: Update and revision for diverse agents. Technical report, University of Amsterdam. ILLC report MoL-2004-05 (MSc thesis).Google Scholar
  25. Lomuscio, A., & Ryan, M. (1998). An algorithmic approach to knowledge evolution. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing (AIEDAM), 13(2). Special issue on Temporal Logic in Engineering.Google Scholar
  26. Lutz, C. (2006). Complexity and succinctness of public announcement logic. In Proceedings of the fifth international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS 06), pp. 137–144.Google Scholar
  27. McCarthy, J. (1990). Formalization of two puzzles involving knowledge. In V. Lifschitz (Ed.), Formalizing common sense: Papers by John McCarthy, Ablex Series in Artificial Intelligence. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Original manuscript dated 1978–1981.Google Scholar
  28. Parikh, R., & Ramanujam, R. (1985). Distributed processing and the logic of knowledge. In Logic of Programs, Vol. 193 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 256–268), Springer. A newer version appeared in Journal of Logic, Language and Information, vol. 12, 2003, pp. 453–467.Google Scholar
  29. Plaza, J. (1989). Logics of public communications. In M. Emrich, M. Pfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, & Z. Ras (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems: Poster session program (pp. 201–216). Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL/DSRD-24.Google Scholar
  30. Renardel de Lavalette G. (2004) Changing modalities. Journal of Logic and Computation 14(2): 253–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scherl R., Levesque H. (2003) Knowledge, action and the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence 144(1–2): 1–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. ten Cate B. (2006) Expressivity of second-order propositional modal logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35: 209–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van Benthem, J. (1989). Semantic parallels in natural language and computation. In Logic colloquium ’87. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  34. van Benthem J., van Eijck J., Kooi B. (2006) Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation 204(11): 1620–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van Ditmarsch, H. (2000). Knowledge games. Ph.D. thesis, University of Groningen. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2000-06.Google Scholar
  36. van Ditmarsch H. (2005) Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision. Synthese (Knowledge, Rationality & Action) 147: 229–275Google Scholar
  37. van Ditmarsch, H., Ruan, J., & Verbrugge, R. (2007a). Sum and product in dynamic epistemic logic. Journal of Logic and Computation. To appear.Google Scholar
  38. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2005). Dynamic epistemic logic with assignment. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS 05) (pp. 141–148). New York: ACM Inc.Google Scholar
  39. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007b). Dynamic epistemic logic, Vol. 337 of Synthese Library. Springer.Google Scholar
  40. van Emde Boas, P., Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1984). The Conway paradox: Its solution in an epistemic framework. In J. Groenendijk, T. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Truth, interpretation and information: Selected papers from the third amsterdam colloquium (pp. 159–182). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Veltman F. (1996) Defaults in update semantics. Journal of Philosophical Logic 25: 221–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations