Studia Logica

, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 297–319 | Cite as

Changing Types: Information Dynamics for Qualitative Type Spaces

Article

Abstract

Many different approaches to describing the players’ knowledge and beliefs can be found in the literature on the epistemic foundations of game theory. We focus here on non-probabilistic approaches. The two most prominent are the so-called Kripkeor Aumann- structures and knowledge structures (non-probabilistic variants of Harsanyi type spaces). Much of the recent work on Kripke structures has focused on dynamic extensions and simple ways of incorporating these. We argue that many of these ideas can be applied to knowledge structures as well. Our main result characterizes precisely when one type can be transformed into another type by a specific type of information update. Our work in this paper suggest that it would be interesting to pursue a theory of “information dynamics” for knowledge structures (and eventually Harsanyi type spaces).

Keywords

Dynamic Epistemic Logic Epistemic Models of Games Harsanyi Type Spaces 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aceto, Luca, Wiebe van der Hoek, Anna Ingólfsdóttir, and Joshua Sack, Sigma algebras in probabilistic epistemic dynamics, in Proceedings of the 13th conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge, ACM, 2011, pp. 191–199.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aumann Robert, Interactive epistemology I: Knowledge. International Journal of Game Theory 28, 263–300 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Benthem, Johan, Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction, Cambridge University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Benthem Johan, Jelle Gerbrandy, Barteld Kooi, Dynamic update with probabilities. Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic 93(1): 67–96 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Benthem, Johan Eric Pacuit, Olivier Roy, Toward a theory of play: A logical perspective on games and interaction. Games 2(1): 52–86 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonanno Giacomo, Pierpaolo Battigalli, Recent results on belief, knowledge and the epistemic foundations of game theory. Research in Economics 53(2):149–225 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandenburger, Adam, Epistemic game theory: Complete information, in S. N. Durlauf, and L. E. Blume, (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brandenburger, Adam, Origins of epsitemic game theory, in V. F. Hendricks, and O. Roy, (eds.), Epistemic Logic: Five Questions, Automatic Press, 2010, pp. 59–69.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brandenburger Adam, Amanda Friedenberg, Self-admissible sets. Journal of Economic Theory 145, 785–811 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Ditmarsch, Hans, and Tim French, Simulation and information: Quantifying over epistemic events, in J.-J. Meyer, and J. Broersen, (eds.), Knowledge Representation for Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, vol. 5605 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Berlin / Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 51–65.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Ditmarsch Hans, Ji Ruan, Rineke Verbrugge, Sum and product in dynamic epistemic logic. Journal of Logic and Computation 18, 563–588 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Ditmarsch, Hans, Wiebe van der Hoek, and Barteld Kooi, Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Synthese Library, Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Eijck, Jan, Yanjing Wang, and Floor Sietsma, Composing models, in Proceedings of LOFT 2010, 2010.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fagin Ron, A quantitative analysis of modal logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 59(1): 209–252 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fagin, Ron, John Geanakoplos, Joseph Halpern, and Moshe Vardi, The hierarchical approach to modeling knowledge and common knowledge, International Journal of Game Theory 28(3):331–365, 1999.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fagin, Ron, Joseph Halpern, and Moshe Vardi, A model-theoretic analysis of knowledge, Journal of the ACM 91(2):382–428, 1991.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fagin, R., and M. Vardi, An internal semantics for modal logic: Preliminary report, in Proc. 17th ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing, 1985, pp. 305–315.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fagin, Ronald, Joseph Halpern, Yoram Moses, and Moshe Vardi, Reasoning about Knowledge, The MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harsanyi, John, Games with incomplete informations played by ‘bayesian’ players, Management Science 14:159–182, 320–334, 486–502, 1967.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    van der Hoek, Wiebe, and Marc Pauly, Modal logic for games and information, in P. Blackburn, J. van Benthem, and F. Wolter, (eds.), Handbook of Modal Logic, vol. 3 of Studies in Logic, Elsevier, 2006, pp. 1077–1148.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Maynard-Reid II, Pedrito, and Yoav Shoham, From belief revision to belief fusion, in Proceedings of LOFT-98, 1998.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Myerson Roger, Harsanyi’s games with incomplete information. Management Science 50(12):1818–1824 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perea, Andrés, Epistemic Game Theory: Reasoning and Choice, Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sietsma, Floor, and Jan van Eijck, Action emulation between canonical models, Proceedings of the Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Game and Decision Theory, 2012.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Siniscalchi, Marciano, Epistemic game theory: Beliefs and types, in S. Durlauf, and L. Blume, (eds.), The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of ScienceTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations