Advertisement

Beyond Knowing That: A New Generation of Epistemic Logics

  • Yanjing WangEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Outstanding Contributions to Logic book series (OCTR, volume 12)

Abstract

Epistemic logic has become a major field of philosophical logic ever since the groundbreaking work by Hintikka [58]. Despite its various successful applications in theoretical computer science, AI, and game theory, the technical development of the field has been mainly focusing on the propositional part, i.e., the propositional modal logics of “knowing that”. However, knowledge is expressed in everyday life by using various other locutions such as “knowing whether”, “knowing what”, “knowing how” and so on (knowing-wh hereafter). Such knowledge expressions are better captured in quantified epistemic logic, as was already discussed by Hintikka [58] and his sequel works at length. This paper aims to draw the attention back again to such a fascinating but largely neglected topic. We first survey what Hintikka and others did in the literature of quantified epistemic logic, and then advocate a new quantifier-free approach to study the epistemic logics of knowing-wh, which we believe can balance expressivity and complexity, and capture the essential reasoning patterns about knowing-wh. We survey our recent line of work on the epistemic logics of ‘knowing whether”, “knowing what” and “knowing how” to demonstrate the use of this new approach.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the support from the National Program for Special Support of Eminent Professionals and NSSF key projects 12&ZD119. The author is grateful to Hans van Ditmarsch for his very detailed comments on an early version of this paper. The author also thanks the anonymous reviewer who gave many constructive suggestions including the observation in footnote 14.

References

  1. 1.
    Ågotnes T, Goranko V, Jamroga W, Wooldridge M (2015) Knowledge and ability. In: van Ditmarsch H, Halpern J, van der Hoek W, Kooi B (eds) Handbook of Epistemic Logic, College Publications, Chap 11, pp 543–589Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aloni M (2001) Quantification under conceptual covers. PhD thesis, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aloni M (2016) Knowing-who in quantified epistemic logic. In: Jaakko Hintikka on knowledge and game theoretical semantics, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aloni M, Roelofsen F (2011) Interpreting concealed questions. Linguist Philos 34(5):443–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aloni M, Égré P, de Jager T (2013) Knowing whether A or B. Synthese 190(14):2595–2621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aumann R (1989) Notes on interactive epistemology. In: Cowles foundation for research in economics working paperGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baltag A (2016) To know is to know the value of a variable. In: Advances in modal logic, vol 11, pp 135–155Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Belardinelli F, van der Hoek W (2015) Epistemic quantified boolean logic: Expressiveness and completeness results. In: Proceedings of IJCAI ’15, AAAI Press, pp 2748–2754Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Belardinelli F, van der Hoek W (2016) A semantical analysis of second-order propositional modal logic. In: Proceedings of AAAI’16, pp 886–892Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Belardinelli F, Lomuscio A (2009) Quantified epistemic logics for reasoning about knowledge in multi-agent systems. Artif Intell 173(9–10):982–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Belardinelli F, Lomuscio A (2011) First-order linear-time epistemic logic with group knowledge: An axiomatisation of the monodic fragment. Fundamenta Informaticae 106(2–4):175–190Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Belardinelli F, Lomuscio A (2012) Interactions between knowledge and time in a first-order logic for multi-agent systems: completeness results. J Artific Intell Res 45:1–45Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Blackburn P, de Rijke M, Venema Y (2002) Modal logic. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boer SE, Lycan WG (2003) Knowing who. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bojańczyk M (2013) Modelling infinite structures with atoms. In: Libkin L, Kohlenbach U, de Queiroz R (eds) Proceedings of WoLLIC’13, Springer, pp 13–28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bojańczyk M, David C, Muscholl A, Schwentick T, Segoufin L (2011) Two-variable logic on data words. ACM Trans Computat Logic 12(4):27:1–27:26Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Braüner T, Ghilardi S (2007) First-order modal logic. In: Blackburn P, van Benthem J, Wolter F (eds) Handbook of modal logic, pp 549–620Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Broersen J, Herzig A (2015) Using STIT theory to talk about strategies. In: van Benthem J, Ghosh S, Verbrugge R (eds) Models of strategic reasoning: logics, games, and communities, Springer, pp 137–173Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chaum D (1988) The dining cryptographers problem: unconditional sender and recipient untraceability. J Cryptol 1(1):65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ciardelli I (2014) Modalities in the realm of questions: axiomatizing inquisitive epistemic logic. In: Advances in modal logic, vol 10, pp 94–113Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ciardelli I (2016) Questions in logic. PhD thesis, University of AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ciardelli I, Roelofsen F (2015) Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese 192(6):1643–1687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ciardelli I, Groenendijk J, Roelofsen F (2013) Inquisitive semantics: a new notion of meaning. Lang Linguist Comp 7(9):459–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cohen M, Dam M (2007) A complete axiomatization of knowledge and cryptography. In: Proceedings of LICS ’07, IEEE Computer Society, pp 77–88Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Corsi G (2002) A unified completeness theorem for quantified modal logics. J Symbol Logic 67(4):1483–1510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Corsi G, Orlandelli E (2013) Free quantified epistemic logics. Studia Logica 101(6):1159–1183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Corsi G, Tassi G (2014) A new approach to epistemic logic. In: Logic, reasoning, and rationality, Springer, pp 25–41Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cresswell MJ (1988) Necessity and contingency. Studia Logica 47(2):145–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Demri S (1997) A completeness proof for a logic with an alternative necessity operator. Studia Logica 58(1):99–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ding Y (2015) Axiomatization and complexity of modal logic with knowing-what operator on model class K, http://www.voidprove.com/research.html, unpublished manuscript
  31. 31.
    van Ditmarsch H (2007) Comments to ’logics of public communications’. Synthese 158(2):181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Ditmarsch H, Fan J (2016) Propositional quantification in logics of contingency. J Appl Non-Classical Logics 26(1):81–102Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Ditmarsch H, van der Hoek W, Kooi B (2007) Dynamic epistemic logic. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Ditmarsch H, van der Hoek W, Illiev P (2012a) Everything is knowable how to get to know whether a proposition is true. Theoria 78(2)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Ditmarsch H, van der Hoek W, Kooi B (2012b) Local properties in modal logic. Artific Intell 187–188:133–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Ditmarsch H, Fan J, van der Hoek W, Iliev P (2014) Some exponential lower bounds on formula-size in modal logic. In: Advances in modal logic, vol 10, pp 139–157Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Ditmarsch H, Halpern J, van der Hoek W, Kooi B (eds) (2015) Handbook of epistemic logic. College PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Egré P (2008) Question-embedding and factivity. Grazer Philos Studien 77(1):85–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fagin R, Halpern J, Moses Y, Vardi M (1995) Reasoning about knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fan J (2015) Logical studies for non-contingency operator. PhD thesis, Peking University, (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fan J, van Ditmarsch H (2015) Neighborhood contingency logic. In: Proceedings of ICLA’15, pp 88–99Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Fan J, Wang Y, van Ditmarsch H (2014) Almost neccessary. In: Advances in modal logic, vol 10, pp 178–196Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fan J, Wang Y, van Ditmarsch H (2015) Contingency and knowing whether. Rev Symbol Logic 8:75–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fine K (1970) Propositional quantifiers in modal logic. Theoria 36(3):336–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Fitch F (1963) A logical analysis of some value concepts. J Symbol Logic 28(2):135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Fitting M, Mendelsohn RL (1998) First-Order Modal Logic. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van Fraassen B (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gattinger M, van Eijck J, Wang Y (2016) Knowing value and public inspection, unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gochet P (2013) An open problem in the logic of knowing how. In: Hintikka J (ed) Open Problems in Epistemology. The Philosophical Society of FinlandGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gochet P, Gribomont P (2006) Epistemic logic. In: Gabbay DM, Woods J (eds) Handbook of the history of logic, vol 7Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Goranko V, Kuusisto A (2016) Logics for propositional determinacy and independence. https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.07398
  52. 52.
    Gu T, Wang Y (2016) Knowing value logic as a normal modal logic. In: Advances in modal logic, vol 11, pp 362–381Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Harrah D (2002) The logic of questions. In: Gabbay D (ed) Handbook of philosophical logic, vol 8Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hart S, Heifetz A, Samet D (1996) "knowing whether", "knowing that", and the cardinality of state spaces. J Econom Theor 70(1):249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Heim I (1979) Concealed questions. In: Bäuerle R, Egli U, von Stechow A (eds) Semantics from different points of view, pp 51–60Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Herzig A (2015) Logics of knowledge and action: critical analysis and challenges. Autonom Agents Multi-Agent Syst 29(5):719–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Herzig A, Lorini E, Maffre F (2015) A poor man’s epistemic logic based on propositional assignment and higher-order observation. In: Proceedings of LORI-V, pp 156–168Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hintikka J (1962) Knowledge and belief: an introduction to the logic of the two notions. Cornell University Press, Ithaca N.YGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hintikka J (1989a) On sense, reference, and the objects of knowledge. In: The logic of epistemology and the epistemology of logic: selected essays, Springer, pp 45–61Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Hintikka J (1989b) Reasoning about knowledge in philosophy: The paradigm of epistemic logic. In: The logic of epistemology and the epistemology of logic: selected essays, Springer, pp 17–35Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Hintikka J (1996) Knowledge acknowledged: knowledge of propositions vs. knowledge of objects. Philos Phenomenol Res 56(2):251–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Hintikka J (1999) What is the logic of experimental inquiry? In: Inquiry as inquiry: a logic of scientific discovery, Springer, pp 143–160Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hintikka J (2003) A second generation epistemic logic and its general significance. In: Jørgensen KF, Pedersen SA (eds) Hendricks VF. Knowledge Contributors, Springer, pp 33–55Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hintikka J (2007) Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hintikka J, Halonen I (1995) Semantics and pragmatics for why-questions. J Philos 92(12):636–657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hintikka J, Sandu G (1989) Informational independence as a semantical phenomenon. In: Fenstad JE, Frolov IT, Hilpinen R (eds) Logic, methodology and philosophy of science 8, Elsevier, pp 571–589Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hintikka J, Symons J (2003) Systems of visual identification in neuroscience: lessons from epistemic logic. Philos Sci 70(1):89–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Hodkinson IM (2002) Monodic packed fragment with equality is decidable. Studia Logica 72(2):185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Hodkinson IM, Wolter F, Zakharyaschev M (2000) Decidable fragment of first-order temporal logics. Ann Pure Appl Logic 106(1–3):85–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hodkinson IM, Wolter F, Zakharyaschev M (2002) Decidable and undecidable fragments of first-order branching temporal logics. In: Proceedings of LICS’02, pp 393–402Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    van der Hoek W, Lomuscio A (2004) A logic for ignorance. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 85(2):117–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Holliday WH, Perry J (2014) Roles, rigidity, and quantification in epistemic logic. In: Smets S (ed) Baltag A. Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics, Springer, pp 591–629Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Humberstone L (1995) The logic of non-contingency. Notre Dame J Form Logic 36(2):214–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kaneko M, Nagashima T (1996) Game logic and its applications. Studia Logica 57(2/3):325–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Khan MA, Banerjee M (2010) A logic for multiple-source approximation systems with distributed knowledge base. J Philos Logic 40(5):663–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kuhn S (1995) Minimal non-contingency logic. Notre Dame J Form Logic 36(2):230–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lau T, Wang Y (2016) Knowing your ability. The Philosophical Forum 47(3–4):415–423Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lenzen W (1978) Recent work in epistemic logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica 30(2):1–219Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Liu F, Wang Y (2013) Reasoning about agent types and the hardest logic puzzle ever. Minds Mach 23(1):123–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Lomuscio A, Ryan M (1999) A spectrum of modes of knowledge sharing between agents. In: Proceedings of ATAL’99, pp 13–26Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    McCarthy J (1979) First-Order theories of individual concepts and propositions. Mach Intell 9:129–147Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Montgomery H, Routley R (1966) Contingency and non-contingency bases for normal modal logics. Logique et Anal 9:318–328Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Moore RC (1977) Reasoning about knowledge and action. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’77, pp 223–227Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Petrick RPA, Bacchus F (2004a) Extending the knowledge-based approach to planning with incomplete information and sensing. In: Zilberstein S, Koehler J, Koenig S (eds) Proceedings of ICAPS’04), AAAI Press, pp 2–11Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Petrick RPA, Bacchus F (2004b) PKS: Knowledge-based planning with incomplete information and sensing. In: Proceedings of ICAPS’04Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Pizzi C (2007) Necessity and relative contingency. Studia Logica 85(3):395–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Plaza JA (1989) Logics of public communications. In: Emrich ML, Pfeifer MS, Hadzikadic M, Ras ZW (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems, pp 201–216Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ryle G (1949) The concept of mind. PenguinGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Stanley J (2011) Know how. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Stanley J, Williamson T (2001) Knowing how. J Philos 98:411–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Sturm H, Wolter F, Zakharyaschev M (2000) Monodic epistemic predicate logic. In: Proceedings of JELIA’00, pp 329–344Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Väänänen J (2007) Dependence logic: a new approach to independence friendly logic. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Van Ditmarsch H, Herzig A, De Lima T (2011) From situation calculus to dynamic epistemic logic. J Logic Comput pp 179–204Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Von Wright GH (1951) An essay in modal logic. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Wang Y (2015a) A logic of knowing how. In: Proceedings of LORI-V, pp 392–405Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Wang Y (2015b) Representing imperfect information of procedures with hyper models. In: Proceedings of ICLA’15, pp 218–231Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Wang Y (2017) A new modal framework for epistemic logic. In: Proceedings of TARK’17: 493–512Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Wang Y (2017) A logic of goal-directed knowing how. Synthese (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Wang Y, Fan J (2013) Knowing that, knowing what, and public communication: Public announcement logic with Kv operators. In: Proceedings of IJCAI’13, pp 1139–1146Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Wang Y, Fan J (2014) Conditionally knowing what. In: Proceedings of AiML Vol.10Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Wolter F (2000) First order common knowledge logics. Studia Logica 65(2):249–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Xiong S (2014) Decidability of \({\mathbf{ELKv}}^{\bf r}\). Bachelor’s thesis, Peking University (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Xu C (2016) A logic of knowing why. Master’s thesis, Peking University, (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Li Y, Yu Q, Wang Y (2017) More for free: a dynamic epistemic framework for conformant planning over transition systems. J Logic Comput (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Zolin E (1999) Completeness and definability in the logic of noncontingency. Notre Dame J Form Logic 40(4):533–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Zolin E (2001) Infinitary expressibility of necessity in terms of contingency. In: Striegnitz K (ed) Proceedings of the sixth ESSLLI student session, pp 325–334Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations