Results 1 -
2 of
2
Concurrent Dynamic Epistemic Logic
, 2003
"... When giving an nalysis of knowledge in multiagent systems, one needs a framework in which higher-order information and its dynamics can both be represented. A recent tradition stoxting in origina work by Plaza treats all of knowledge, higher-order knowledge, and its dynamics on the sae foot. Our ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 67 (13 self)
- Add to MetaCart
When giving an nalysis of knowledge in multiagent systems, one needs a framework in which higher-order information and its dynamics can both be represented. A recent tradition stoxting in origina work by Plaza treats all of knowledge, higher-order knowledge, and its dynamics on the sae foot. Our work is in that tradition. It also fits in approaches that not only dynaize the epistemics, but also epistemize the dynamics: the ac- tions that (groups of) agents perform oxe epistemic actions. Different agents may have different information about which action is taking place, including higher-order information. We demonstrate that such information changes require subtle descriptions. Our contribution is to provide a complete axiomatization for n action language of vn Ditmoxsch, where an action is interpreted as a relation between epistemic states (pointed models) and sets of epistemic states. The applicability of the framework is found in every context where multiagent strategic decision making is at stake, and aready demonstrated in gae-like scenoxios such as Cluedo and coxd games.
Playing Cards with Hintikka - An Introduction to Dynamic Epistemic Logic
, 2004
"... Introduction Imagine three players Anne, Bill, and Cath, each holding one card from a `stack' of three (known) cards clubs, hearts, and spades, such that they only know their own card but do not know which other card is held by which other player. Assume that the actual deal is that Anne holds club ..."
Abstract
-
Cited by 1 (0 self)
- Add to MetaCart
Introduction Imagine three players Anne, Bill, and Cath, each holding one card from a `stack' of three (known) cards clubs, hearts, and spades, such that they only know their own card but do not know which other card is held by which other player. Assume that the actual deal is that Anne holds clubs, Bill holds hearts and Cath holds spades. Now Anne announces that she does not have hearts. What was known before this announcement, and how does this knowledge change as a result of that action? Before, Cath did not know that Anne holds clubs, but afterwards she knows that Anne holds clubs. This is because Cath can reason as follows: "I have spades, so Anne must have clubs or hearts. If she says that she does not have hearts, she must therefore have clubs." Bill knows that Cath now knows Anne's card, even though he does not know himself what Anne's card is. Both before and after, players know which card they hold in their hands. Note that the only change that appears to have taken place i

