A Strategic Perspective on if Games

  • Merlijn Sevenster
Part of the Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science book series (LEUS, volume 15)


Hintikka and Sandu's Independence-friendly logic (Hintikka, 1996; Hintikka and Sandu, 1997) has traditionally been associated with extensive games of imperfect information. In this paper we set up a strategic framework for the evaluation of IF logic à la Hintikka and Sandu. We show that the traditional semantic interpretation of IF logic can be characterized in terms of Nash equilibria. We note that moving to the strategic framework we get rid of IF semantic games that violate the principle of perfect recall. We explore the strategic framework by replacing the notion of Nash equilibrium by other solution concepts, that are inspired by weakly dominant strategies and iterated removal thereof, charting the expressive power of IF logic under the resulting semantics.


Nash Equilibrium Solution Concept Expressive Power Dominant Strategy Winning Strategy 
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. Cameron, P. J. and Hodges, W. (2001). Some combinatorics of imperfect information. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 66(2):673–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. de Bruin, B. (2004). Explaining Games, On the Logic of Game Theoretic Explanations. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  3. Dechesne, F. (2005). Game, Set, Maths: Formal Investigations into Logic with Imperfect Information. Ph.D. thesis, SOBU, Tilburg university and Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  4. Henkin, L. (1959). Some remarks on infinitely long formulas. Infinitistic Methods, Proceedings of the Symposium on Foundations of Mathematics, Warsaw, 167–183.Google Scholar
  5. Hintikka, J. (1996). Principles of Mathematics Revisited. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Hintikka, J. and Sandu, G. (1997). Game-theoretical semantics. In van Benthem, J. F. A. K. and ter Meulen, A., editors, Handbook of Logic and Language, pages 361–481. North Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Janssen, T. M. V. (2002). Independent choices and the interpretation of IF logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 11:367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Osborne, M. J. and Rubinstein, A. (1994). A Course in Game Theory. MIT, Cambridge, MA. Pietarinen, A. and Tulenheimo, T. (2004). An introduction to IF logic. Lecture notes for the 16th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information.Google Scholar
  9. Sandu, G. and Pietarinen, A. (2003). Informationally independent connectives. In Mints, G. and Muskens, R., editors, Logic, Language and Computation, volume 9, pages 23–41. CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  10. Sevenster, M. (2006). Branches of Imperfect Information: Logic, Games, and Computation. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  11. van Benthem, J. F. A. K. (2000). Logic and games, lecture notes. Draft version.Google Scholar
  12. van Benthem, J. F. A. K. (2004). Probabilistic features in logic games. In Kolak, D. and Symons, D., editors, Quantifiers, Questions and Quantum Physics, pages 189–194. Springer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Walkoe, W. (1970). Finite partially-ordered quantification. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 35: 535–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Merlijn Sevenster
    • 1
  1. 1.Philips ResearchAA EindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations