Determining the environment: a modal logic for closed interaction
- First Online:
- 58 Downloads
The aim of the work is to provide a language to reason about Closed Interactions, i.e. all those situations in which the outcomes of an interaction can be determined by the agents themselves and in which the environment cannot interfere with they are able to determine. We will see that two different interpretations can be given of this restriction, both stemming from Pauly Representation Theorem. We will identify such restrictions and axiomatize their logic. We will apply the formal tools to reason about games and their regulation.
KeywordsCooperative Game Theory Logic Closed Interaction
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Abdou, J., & Keiding, H. (1991). Effectivity functions in social choice. In Theory and decision library C (Vol. 8). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
- Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001). Modal logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science (Vol. 53). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Borgo, S. (2007). Coalitions in action logic. Proceedings of IJCAI 2007 (pp. 1822–1827). Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
- Broersen, J., Meyer. J. J. Ch., Mastop, R., & Turrini P. (2008). A deontic logic for socially optimal norms. In Proceedings of ninth international workshop on deontic logic in computer science, Berlin: Spriger.Google Scholar
- Chellas B. (1980) Modal logic: An introduction. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Coleman, K. G. (2004). Computing and moral responsibility. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Google Scholar
- Conte, R., & Paolucci, M. (2004) Responsibility for societies of agents. JASSS, http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/7/4/3.html.
- Hansen, H. H. (2003). Monotonic modal logics. Master Thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
- Hansen, H. H., & Pauly, M. (2002). Axiomatising nash-consistent coalition logic. In Proceedings of JELIA 2002, pp. 394–406.Google Scholar
- Harel D. (1984) Dynamic logic. In: Gabbay D., Guenther F. (eds) Handbook of philosophical logic volume II—extensions of classical logic. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Liu, F. (2008). Changing for the better: Preference dynamics and agent diversity. PhD Thesis, ILLC Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
- Osborne M., Rubinstein A. (1994) A course in game theory. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Parikh, R. (1985). The logic of games and its applications. In Selected papers of the international conference on “foundations of computation theory” on Topics in the theory of computation (pp. 111–139). Sweden: Borgholm.Google Scholar
- Pauly, M. (2001). Logic for social software. PhD thesis, ILLC Dissertation Series.Google Scholar
- van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. In Synthese library (Vol. 337). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
- von Wright G.H. (1980) Freedom and determination. North Amsterdam, Holland Publishing CoGoogle Scholar