Skip to main content

Topo-Logic as a Dynamic-Epistemic Logic

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNTCS,volume 10455)


We extend the ‘topologic’ framework [13] with dynamic modalities for ‘topological public announcements’ in the style of Bjorndahl [5]. We give a complete axiomatization for this “Dynamic Topo-Logic”, which is in a sense simpler than the standard axioms of topologic. Our completeness proof is also more direct (making use of a standard canonical model construction). Moreover, we study the relations between this extension and other known logical formalisms, showing in particular that it is co-expressive with the simpler (and older) logic of interior and global modality [1, 4, 10, 14]. This immediately provides an easy decidability proof (both for topologic and for our extension).

A. Özgün—Acknowledges financial support from European Research Council grant EPS 313360.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-55665-8_23
  • Chapter length: 17 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-662-55665-8
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)


  1. 1.

    Indeed, the original paper [2] on “classical” (non-topological) APAL modality contained a similar attempt of converting an infinitary rule into an finitary rule. That was later shown to be flawed: the finitary rule was not sound for the APAL modality (though it is sound for effort)!

  2. 2.

    For a general introduction to topology we refer to [7]. A topological space \((X, \tau )\) consists of a non-empty set X and a “topology” \(\tau \subseteq {\mathcal P}(X)\), i.e. a family of subsets of X (called open sets) such that \(X, \emptyset \in \tau ,\) and \(\tau \) is closed under finite intersections and arbitrary unions. The complements \(X\setminus U\) of open sets are called closed. The collection \(\tau \) is called a topology on X and elements of \(\tau \) are called open sets. An open set containing \(x\in X\) is called an open neighborhood of x. The interior \( Int ( A)\) of a set \(A\subseteq X\) is the largest open set contained in A, i.e., \( Int ( A)=\bigcup \{U\in \tau \ | \ U\subseteq A\}\), while the closure \( cl ( A)\) is the smallest closed set containing A. A family \(\mathcal {B}\subseteq \tau \) is called a basis for a topological space \((X,\tau )\) if every non-empty element of \(\tau \) can be written as a union of elements of \(\mathcal {B}\).

  3. 3.

    We prefer to talk about “updates”, rather than public announcements, since our setting is single-agent: there is no “publicity” involved. The agent simply learns \(\varphi \) (and implicitly also learns that \(\varphi \) was learnable).

  4. 4.

    In fact, the modality \( int \) can be defined in terms of the public announcement modality as \( int ( \varphi ):=\lnot [\varphi ] \bot \), thus, the language \(\mathcal {L}_{!K int }\) and its fragment \(\mathcal {L}_{!K}\) without the modality \( int \) are also co-expressive.

  5. 5.

    Although Bjorndahl’s formulations of (R\(_!\)) and (R\(_{ int }\)) are unnecessarily complicated: the first is stated as \([\varphi ][\psi ]\chi \leftrightarrow [ int (\varphi ) \wedge [\varphi ] int (\psi ) ]\chi \), while the second as \([\varphi ] int (\psi ) \leftrightarrow \left( int (\varphi ) \rightarrow int ([\varphi ]\psi ) \right) \). It is easy to see that these are equivalent to our simpler formulations, given the other axioms.

  6. 6.

    Indeed, this is because the satisfaction relation for epistemic scenarios in any pseudo-model that happens to be a topo-model agrees with the topo-model satisfaction relation.


  1. Aiello, M.: Theory and practice. Ph.D. thesis, ILLC, Univerisity of Amsterdam (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Balbiani, P., Baltag, A., van Ditmarsch, H., Herzig, A., Hoshi, T., Lima, T.D.: ‘Knowable’ as ‘Known after an announcement’. Rew. Symb. Logic 1, 305–334 (2008)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Baltag, A.: To know is to know the value of a variable. In: Proceedings of the 11th Advances in Modal Logic, pp. 135–155 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bennett, B.: Modal logics for qualitative spatial reasoning. Logic J. IGPL 4, 23–45 (1996)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bjorndahl, A.: Topological subset space models for public announcements. In: Trends in Logic, Outstanding Contributions: Jaakko Hintikka (2016, to appear)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Dabrowski, A., Moss, L.S., Parikh, R.: Topological reasoning and the logic of knowledge. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 78, 73–110 (1996)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Engelking, R.: General Topology, vol. 6, 2nd edn. Heldermann Verlag, Berlin (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Georgatos, K.: Modal logics for topological spaces. Ph.D. thesis, City University of New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Georgatos, K.: Knowledge theoretic properties of topological spaces. In: Masuch, M., Pólos, L. (eds.) Logic at Work 1992. LNCS, vol. 808, pp. 147–159. Springer, Heidelberg (1994). doi:10.1007/3-540-58095-6_11

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  10. Goranko, V., Passy, S.: Using the universal modality: gains and questions. J. Log. Comput. 2, 5–30 (1992)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Kelly, K.T.: The Logic of Reliable Inquiry. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1996)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. McKinsey, J.C.C., Tarski, A.: The algebra of topology. Ann. Math. 2(45), 141–191 (1944)

    CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Moss, L.S., Parikh, R.: Topological reasoning and the logic of knowledge. In: Proceedings of the 4th TARK, pp. 95–105. Morgan Kaufmann (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Shehtman, V.B.: “Everywhere” and “Here”. J. Appl. Non Class. Logics 9, 369–379 (1999)

    MathSciNet  CrossRef  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. Ditmarsch, H., Knight, S., Özgün, A.: Arbitrary announcements on topological subset spaces. In: Bulling, N. (ed.) EUMAS 2014. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8953, pp. 252–266. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17130-2_17

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vickers, S.: Topology via Logic. Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aybüke Özgün .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this paper

Cite this paper

Baltag, A., Özgün, A., Vargas Sandoval, A.L. (2017). Topo-Logic as a Dynamic-Epistemic Logic. In: Baltag, A., Seligman, J., Yamada, T. (eds) Logic, Rationality, and Interaction. LORI 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 10455. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.

Download citation

  • DOI:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-55664-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-55665-8

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)