Journal of Philosophical Logic

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 445–472 | Cite as

Reasoning About Permitted Announcements

Article

Abstract

We formalize what it means to have permission to say something. We adapt the dynamic logic of permission by van der Meyden (J Log Comput 6(3):465–479, 1996) to the case where atomic actions are public truthful announcements. We also add a notion of obligation. Our logic is an extension of the logic of public announcements introduced by Plaza (1989) with dynamic modal operators for permission and for obligation. We axiomatize the logic and show that it is decidable.

Keywords

Epistemic logic Deontic logic Public announcements Modal logic Axiomatisation Decidability Permission Obligation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ågotnes, T., Balbiani, P., van Ditmarsch, H., & Seban, P. (2010). Group announcement logic. Journal of Applied Logic, 8, 62–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aucher, G., Boella, G., & van der Torre, L. (2010). Privacy policies with modal logic: The dynamic turn. In G. Governatori, & G. Sartor (Eds.), Proceedings of 10th DEON. LNCS 6181 (pp. 196–213). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Balbiani, P., van Ditmarsch, H., & Seban, P. (2009). Reasoning about permitted announcements. In A. Herzig, & E. Lorini (Eds.), (Electronic) proceedings of: ESSLLI 2009 workshop logical methods for social concepts, Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L.S., & 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
  5. 5.
    Baltag, A., van Ditmarsch, H., & Moss, L.S. (2008). Epistemic logic and information update. In J. van Benthem, & P. Adriaans (Eds.), Handbook on the philosophy of information (pp. 361–456). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001). Modal logic. Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science 53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boh, I. (1993). Epistemic logic in the later middle ages. Evanston, IL: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chisholm, R.M. (1964). The ethics of requirement. American Philosophical Quarterly, 1, 147–153.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M.Y. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer, M., & Ladner, R. (1979). Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 18(2), 194–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Horty, J.F. (2001). Agency and deontic logic. London, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoshi, T. (2008). Logics of public announcements with announcement protocols. Manuscript. Philosophy Department, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mally, E. (1926). Grundgesetze des Sollens: Elemente der Logik des Willens. Leuschner und Lubensky, Universitaäts-Buchhandlung, Graz.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meyer, J.-J.Ch. (1987). A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29(1), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Moore, G.E. (1942). A reply to my critics. In P.A. Schilpp (Ed.), The philosophy of G.E. Moore (pp. 535–677). The Library of Living Philosophers (volume 4). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parikh, R., & Ramanujam, R. (2003). A knowledge based semantics of messages. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 12, 453–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Plaza, J.A. (1989). Logics of public communications. In M.L. Emrich, M.S. Pfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, & Z.W. Ras (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems: Poster session program (pp. 201–216). Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Plaza, J.A.: Logics of public communications. Synthese, 158(2), 165–179. (2007). Reprint of Plaza’s 1989 workshop paper.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pucella, R., & Weissman, V. (2004). Reasoning about dynamic policies. In I. Walukiewicz (Ed.), FOSSACS 2004. LNCS 2987 (pp. 453–467). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ross, A. (1941). Imperatives and logic. Theoria, 7, 53–71.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J.D., Hoshi, T., & Pacuit, E. (2009). Merging frameworks for interaction. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38, 491–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Meyden, R. (1996). The dynamic logic of permission. Journal of Logic and Computation, 6(3), 465–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Ditmarsch, H., & French, T. (2009). Simulation and information. In J. Broersen, & J.-J. Meyer (Eds.), Knowledge representation for agents and multi-agent systems. LNAI 5605. Presented at LOFT 2008 and KRAMAS 2008 (pp. 51–65). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B.P. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese Library (vol. 337). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    von Wright, G.H. (1951). An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang, Y. (2010). Epistemic modelling and protocol dynamics. PhD thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de recherche en informatique de ToulouseCNRS - Université de ToulouseToulouse Cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations