• V. F. Hendricks
  • K. F. Jørgensen
  • S. A. Pedersen
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 322)


The study of epistemic attitudes — in particular knowledge and belief — dates at least back to the Scholaticism of the Middles Ages. The formal study of the same attitudes was then largely initiated by von Wright’s seminal paper from the (37). The formal systematic study of knowledge and belief saw the light of day by Hintikka’s book by the same name Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions from (16). Hardly a publication in epistemic logic has surfaced since without reference to this ground-breaking investigation. More recent monographs dedicated to epistemic and/or doxastic logic1 include notably (22), (25), (3), (19), (35), (6), (30), (12), (14), and (11).


Modal Logic Common Knowledge Belief Revision Accessibility Relation Epistemic Logic 
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]
    C.E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. On the Logic of Theory Change. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50:510–530, 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. Baltag, L.S. Moss, and S. Solecki. The Logic of Public Annoucements, Common Knowledge, and Private Suspicion. Presented at TARK98. Accepted for publication in Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 2002, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    I. Boh. Epistemic Logic in the Middle Ages. Routledge, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    R. Bull and K. Segerberg. Basic Modal Logic. in ((7)): 1–88, 1984.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    M. de Rijke. Meeting Some Neighbours: A Dynamic Modal Logic Meets Theories of Change and Knowledge Representation. in Logic and Information Flow, Eijck, J.v and Visser, A. (eds.). Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R. Fagin, J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Y. Vardi. Reasoning about Knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner. Handbook of Philosophical Logic. vol. II: Extensions of Classical Logic. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    P. Gärdenfors. Knowledge in Flux—Modelling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1988.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    P. Gochet and P. Gribomont. Epistemic Logic. forthcoming in Handbook of the History and Philosophy of Logic, edited by Gabbay, D.M. and Woods, J. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    J. Y. Halpern. Should Knowledge Entail Belief? Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25:483–494, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    J.Y. Halpern. Reasoning about Uncertainty. MIT Press, Cambridge, 2003.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    V. F. Hendricks. The Convergence of Scientific Knowledge — a view from the limit. Trends in Logic: Studia Logica Library Series. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    V. F. Hendricks. Active Agents. Φ NEWS (2002), vol. 2: 5–40. A revised version of the paper is published in a special volume of the Journal of Logic, Language and Information, van Benthem, J. and van Rooy, R. (eds.). (2003), 2003.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    V. F. Hendricks. Forcing Epistemology. in press, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    V. F. Hendricks and J. Malinowski, editors. Trends in Logic: 50 Years of Studia Logica. Trends in Logic: Studia Logica Library Series. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. Contributions from J. van Benthem, W. Buszkowski, M.L. Dalla Chiara, M. Fitting, J.M. Font, R. Giuntini, R. Goldblatt, V. Marra, D. Mundici, R. Leporini, S.P. Odintsow, H. Ono, G. Priest and H. Wansing.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    J. Hintikka. Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Cornell University Press, Cornell, 1962.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    J. Hintikka and I. Halonen. Epistemic Logic. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, volume 1, 1998.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    K. Kelly. The Logic of Reliable Inquiry. Oxford University Press, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    S. Knuuttila. Modal Logic in the Middle Ages. Routledge, 1993.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    S. Kripke. Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic. Zeitschrift für Matematische Logik und Grundlagen der Matematik, 9:67–96, 1963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    E. J. Lemmon. An Introduction to Modal Logic. Basil Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, 1977. in collaboration with D. Scott.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    W. Lenzen. Recent Work in Epistemic Logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 30:1–219, 1978.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    S. Lindström and W. Rabinowicz. Extending Dynamic Logic: Accommodating Iterated Beliefs and Ramsey Conditionals within DLL. in For Good Measure, Lindahl, L., Needham, P. and Sliwinski, R. (eds.). Uppsala Philosophical Studies 46: 123–153, 1997.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    S. Lindström and W. Rabinowicz. DDL Unlimited: Dynamic Doxastic Logic for Introspective Agents. Erkenntnis, 50:353–385, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    G. N. Schlesinger. The Range of Epistemic Logic. Aberdeen University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    D. Scott. Advice on Modal Logic. in Philosophical Problems in Logic, Lambert, K. (ed.). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company: 143–173, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    K. Segerberg. Belief Revision from the Point of View of Doxastic Logic. Bulletin of the IGPL, 3:535–553, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    K. Segerberg. A Completeness Proof in Full DDL. in Philosophical Crumbs: Essays Dedicated to Ann-Mari Henschen-Dahlqvist on the Occasion of her Seventyfifth Birthday, Sliwinski, R. (ed.). Uppsala Philosophical Studies 49: 195–207, 1999.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    K. Segerberg. The Basic Dynamic Doxastic Logic of AGM. Uppsala Prints and Preprints in Philosophy, 1, 1999.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    John F. Sowa. Knowledge Representation:. Logical, Philosophical, and Computational Foundations. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, California, 2000.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    J.F.A.K. v. Benthem. Logic and Game Theory—close encounters of the third kind. in Prooceedings of LLC99, Loon, I.v., Mints, G. and Muskens, R. (eds). CSLI Publications, 2000.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    J.F.A.K. v. Benthem. Dynamic-Epistemic Logic of Games. to appear in Prooceedings of LOFT 4, Bonanno, G. (ed.), Bulletin of Economic Research, 2001.Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    J.F.A.K. v. Benthem. Fifty Years: Changes and Constants in Logic. in (15): 35–56, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    W. van der Hoek. Systems for Knowledge and Belief. Journal of Logic and Computation, 3(2):173–195, 1996.Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    W. van der Hoek and J.-J.Ch. Meyer. Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science, volume 41 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    F. von Kutschera. Einführung in die intensional Semantik. W. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1976.Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    H. G. Von Wright. An Essay on Modal Logic. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1951.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. F. Hendricks
    • 1
  • K. F. Jørgensen
    • 1
  • S. A. Pedersen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Science StudiesRoskilde UniversityDenmark

Personalised recommendations