Synthese

, Volume 165, Issue 2, pp 225–245 | Cite as

Public and private communication are different: results on relative expressivity

Article

Abstract

Dynamic Epistemic Logic (DEL) is the study of how to reason about knowledge, belief, and communication. This paper studies the relative expressivity of certain fragments of the DEL language for public and private communication. It is shown that the language of public communication with common knowledge and the language of private communication with common knowledge are expressively incomparable for the class of all pointed Kripke models, which provides a formal proof that public and private communication are fundamentally different in the presence of common knowledge. It is also shown that single-recipient private communication does not add expressive power to the language of modal logic with common knowledge for any class of transitive pointed Kripke models. The latter result provides a sense in which positive introspection—believing our own beliefs—induces a kind of self-dialog.

Keywords

Dynamic epistemic logic Expressivity Private communication 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baltag A., Moss L.S. (2004) Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese 139(2): 165–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baltag, A., Moss, L. S., & Solecki, S. (1998). The logic of common knowledge, public announcements, and private suspicions. In I. Gilboa (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK VII) (pp. 43–56). Evanston, IL, USA.Google Scholar
  3. Baltag, A., Moss, L. S., & Solecki S. (2005). Logics for epistemic actions: Completeness, decidability, expressivity. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  4. Blackburn P., de Rijke M., Venema Y. (2001) Modal logic. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Fagin R., Halpern J.Y., Moses Y., Vardi M.Y. (1995) Reasoning about knowledge. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Gerbrandy, J. (1999). Bisimulations on Planet Kripke. Ph.D. thesis, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Gerbrandy J., Groeneveld W. (1997) Reasoning about information change. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 6: 147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hintikka J. (1962) Knowledge and belief. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  9. Kripke S.A. (1959) A completeness theorem in modal logic. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 24(1): 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lutz, C. (2006). Complexity and succinctness of public announcement logic. In P. Stone & G. Weiss (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems (AAMAS’06) (pp. 137–144).Google Scholar
  11. Parikh, R. (2005). Logical omniscience and common knowledge: WHAT do we know and what do WE know?. In R. van der Meyden (Ed.), Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK-2005) (pp. 62–77). Singapore.Google Scholar
  12. Plaza, J. A. (1989). Logics of public communications. In Z. W. Ras (Ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS 1989). North-Holland.Google Scholar
  13. van Benthem J., van Eijck J., Kooi B. (2006) Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation, 204(11): 1620–1662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CUNY Graduate CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations