Dynamic Epistemic Temporal Logic

  • Bryan Renne
  • Joshua Sack
  • Audrey Yap
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5834)


We introduce a new type of arrow in the update frames (or “action models”) of Dynamic Epistemic Logic in a way that enables us to reason about epistemic temporal dynamics in multi-agent systems that need not be synchronous. Since van Benthem and Pacuit (later joined by Hoshi and Gerbrandy) showed that standard Dynamic Epistemic Logic necessarily satisfies synchronicity, it follows that our arrow type is a new way of extending the domain of applicability of the Dynamic Epistemic Logic approach. Furthermore, our framework provides a new perspective on the van Benthem et al work itself. In particular, while each of our work and their work shows that epistemic temporal models generated by standard update frames necessarily satisfy certain structural properties such as synchronicity, our work clarifies the way in which these structural properties arise as a result of the inherent structure of standard update frames themselves.


Kripke Model Epistemic Logic Past State Isomorphism Theorem Inherent Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baltag, A., van Ditmarsch, H.P., Moss, L.S.: Epistemic logic and information update. In: Adriaans, P., van Benthem, J. (eds.) Handbook on the Philosophy of Information, pp. 369–463. Elsevier, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L.S.: Logics for epistemic programs. Synthese 139(2), 165–224 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baltag, A., Moss, L., Solecki, S.: The logic of public announcements, common knowledge and private suspicions. In: Gilboa, I. (ed.) TARK 1998, pp. 43–56 (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., Kooi, B.: Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation 204(11), 1620–1662 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., Hoshi, T., Pacuit, E.: Merging frameworks for interaction. Journal of Philosophical Logic (in press, 2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Benthem, J., Gerbrandy, J., Pacuit, E.: Merging frameworks for interaction: DEL and ETL. In: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK XI), pp. 72–81 (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese Library. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fagin, R., Halpern, J.Y., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.Y.: Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoshi, T., Yap, A.: Dynamic epistemic logic with branching temporal structures. Synthese (in press, 2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parikh, R., Ramanujam, R.: A knowledge based semantics of messages. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 12, 453–467 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Renne, B.: A survey of Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Manuscript (July 2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renne, B., Sack, J., Yap, A.: Dynamic Epistemic Temporal Logic. Extended Manuscript (June 2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sack, J.: Temporal languages for epistemic programs. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 17(2), 183–216 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yap, A.: Dynamic epistemic logic and temporal modality. Forthcoming in Proceedings of Dynamic Logic Montréal (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bryan Renne
    • 1
  • Joshua Sack
    • 2
  • Audrey Yap
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Groningenthe Netherlands
  2. 2.Reykjavík UniversityIceland
  3. 3.University of VictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations