Studia Logica

, Volume 75, Issue 1, pp 31–62 | Cite as

The Russian Cards Problem

  • Hans van Ditmarsch


Suppose we have a stack of cards that is divided over some players. For certain distributions of cards it is possible to communicate your hand of cards to another player by public announcements, without yet another player learning any of your cards. A solution to this problem consists of some sequence of announcements and is called an exchange. It is called a direct exchange if it consists of (the minimum of) two announcements only. The announcements in an exchange have a special form: they are safe communications, an interesting new form of update. Certain unsafe communications turn out to be unsuccessful updates. A communication is a public announcement that is known to be true. Each communication may be about a set of alternative card deals only, and even about a set of alternatives to the communicating player's own hand only. We list the direct exchanges for a deal of seven cards where the two players holding three cards communicate their hands to each other. Our work may be applicable to the design of cryptographic protocols.

modal logic cryptographic protocol card game update logic epistemic logic multiagent system 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    Agray, N., W. Van Der Hoek, and E. De Vink, ‘On ban logics for industrial security protocols’, in B. Dunin-Keplicz and E. Nawarecki, (eds.), From Theory to Practice in Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 29-38. LNAI 2296, Springer, Berlin, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Baltag, A., ‘A logic for suspicious players: Epistemic actions and belief updates in games’, Bulletin of Economic Research, 54(1):1-45, 2002.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Burrows, M., M. Abadi, and R. Needham, ‘A logic of authentication’, ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 8:18-36, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Engelhardt, K., R. Van Der Meyden, and Y. Moses, ‘Knowledge and the logic of local propositions’, in I. Gilboa, (ed.), Proceedings of TARK VII, pp. 29-41. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Fagin, R., J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi, Reasoning about Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Fischer, M. J., and R. N. Wright, ‘Bounds on secret key exchange using a random deal of cards’, Journal of Cryptology, 9(2):71-99, 1996.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Gerbrandy, J. D., Bisimulations on Planet Kripke, PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam, 1999. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-1999-01.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Gerbrandy, J. D., and W. Groeneveld, ‘Reasoning about information change’, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 6:147-169, 1997.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Graham, R. L., M. Grotschel, and L. Lovasz, (eds.), Handbook of Combinatorics, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1996.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Makarychev, K., Logicheskie voprosy peredachi informacii (logical issues of information transmission), Master's thesis, Moscow State University, 2001. Diplomnaja rabota, part 1.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    Makarychev, K. S., and Yu. S. Makarychev, ‘The importance of being formal’, Mathematical Intelligencer, 23(1):41-42, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Meyer, J.-J. Ch., and W. Van Der Hoek, Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 41, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Plaza, J. A., ‘Logics of public communications’, in M. L. Emrich, M. S. Pfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, and Z. W. Ras, (eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pp. 201-216, 1989.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Stulp, F., and L. C. Verbrugge, ‘A knowledge-based algorithm for the internet transmission control protocol (tcp)’, Bulletin of Economic Research, 54(1):69-94, 2002.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Van Benthem, J. F. A. K., ‘Logics for information update’, in J. F. A. K. van Benthem, (ed.), Proceedings of TARK VIII, pp. 51-88, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Van Benthem, J. F. A. K., P. Dekker, J. Van Eijck, M. De Rijke, and Y. Venema, Logic in Action, ILLC, Amsterdam, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Van Ditmarsch, H. P., Knowledge games, PhD thesis, University of Groningen, 2000. ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2000-06.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Van Ditmarsch, H. P., ‘Killing cluedo’, Natuur & Techniek, 69(11):32-40, 2001.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Van Ditmarsch, H. P., ‘Knowledge games’, Bulletin of Economic Research, 53(4):249-273, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Van Ditmarsch, H. P., ‘Descriptions of game actions’, Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 11:349-365, 2002.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Van Ditmarsch, H. P., ‘Oplossing van het mysterie (solution of the murder mystery)’, Natuur & Techniek, 70(2):17, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Van Ditmarsch, H. P., W. Van Der Hoek, and B. P. Kooi, ‘Descriptions of game states’, in I. van Loon, G. Mints, and R. Muskens, (eds.), Proceedings of LLC9 (2000), CSLI Publications, Stanford. To appear.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans van Ditmarsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations