Journal of Logic, Language and Information

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 147–169 | Cite as

Reasoning about Information Change

  • Jelle Gerbrandy
  • Willem Groeneveld


In this paper we introduce Dynamic Epistemic Logic, which is alogic for reasoning about information change in a multi-agent system. Theinformation structures we use are based on non-well-founded sets, and canbe conceived as bisimulation classes of Kripke models. On these structures,we define a notion of information change that is inspired by UpdateSemantics (Veltman, 1996). We give a sound and complete axiomatization ofthe resulting logic, and we discuss applications to the puzzle of the dirtychildren, and to knowledge programs.

Dynamic logic epistemic logic information exchange non-well-founded set theory 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aczel, P., 1988, Non-Well-Founded Sets, CSLI Lecture Notes, Stanford.Google Scholar
  2. Barwise, J., 1981, "Scenes and other situations," Journal of Philosophy 78(1), 369–397.Google Scholar
  3. van Emde Boas, P., Groenendijk, J., and Stokhof, M., 1980, "The conway paradox: Its solution in an epistemic framework," pp. 159–182 in Proceedings of the Third Amsterdam Montague Symposion.Google Scholar
  4. Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., and Vardi, M., 1995, Reasoning about Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., and Vardi, M.Y., 1991, "A model theoretic analysis of knowledge," Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery 39(2), 382–428.Google Scholar
  6. Gärdenfors, P., 1988, Knowledge in Flux, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Goldblatt, R., 1987, Logics of Time and Computation, CSLI Lecture Notes.Google Scholar
  8. Groeneveld, W., 1995, "Logical investigations into dynamic semantics," Ph.D. Thesis, ILLC Dissertation Series 1995-18, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Jaspars, J., 1994, "Calculi for constructive communication. A study of the dynamics of partial states," Ph.D. Thesis, ITK, Katholieke Universiteit Brabant.Google Scholar
  10. Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A.O., 1992, "On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it", pp. 183–203 in Belief Revision, P. Gärdenfors, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. McCarthy, J., 1990, "Formalization of two puzzles involving knowledge," pp. 1–61 in Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy, V. Lifschitz, ed., Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  12. Moses, Y., Dolev, D., and Halpern, J.Y., 1986, "Cheating husbands and other stories: A case study of knowledge, action, and communication," Distributed Computing 1, 167–176.Google Scholar
  13. Pratt, V.R., 1976, "Semantical considerations on floyd-hoare logic," pp. 109–121 in Proceedings of 17th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  14. de Rijke, M., 1993, "A system of dynamic modal logic," in Extending Modal Logic, Ph.D. Thesis, ILLC Dissertation Series 1993-4, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  15. Segerberg, K., 1995, "Belief revision from the point of view of doxastic logic," Bulletin of the IGPL 3(4), 535–553.Google Scholar
  16. Shoham, Y., 1993, "Agent oriented programming," Artificial Intelligence 60(1), 51–92.Google Scholar
  17. Veltman, F., 1996, "Defaults in update semantics," Journal of Philosophical Logic 25, 221–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelle Gerbrandy
    • 1
  • Willem Groeneveld
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations