Results 1 
4 of
4
An Impossibility Theorem On Beliefs In Games
 BELIEFS IN GAMES,” UNPUBLISHED
, 1999
"... A paradox of selfreference in beliefs in games is identified, which yields a gametheoretic impossibility theorem akin to Russell’s Paradox. An informal version of the paradox is that the following configuration of beliefs is impossible: Ann believes that Bob assumes that Ann believes that Bob’s a ..."
Abstract

Cited by 14 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
A paradox of selfreference in beliefs in games is identified, which yields a gametheoretic impossibility theorem akin to Russell’s Paradox. An informal version of the paradox is that the following configuration of beliefs is impossible: Ann believes that Bob assumes that Ann believes that Bob’s assumption is wrong This is formalized to show that any belief model of a certain kind must have a ‘hole.’ An interpretation of the result is that if the analyst’s tools are available to the players in a game, then there are statements that the players can think about but cannot assume. Connections are made to some questions in the foundations of game theory.
Belief revision in a temporal framework
 New Perspectives on Games and Interaction, volume 4 of Texts in Logic and Games
, 2009
"... The theory of belief revision deals with (rational) changes in beliefs in response to new information. In the literature a distinction has been drawn between belief revision and belief update (see [6]). The former deals with situations where the objective facts describing the world do not change (so ..."
Abstract

Cited by 6 (2 self)
 Add to MetaCart
The theory of belief revision deals with (rational) changes in beliefs in response to new information. In the literature a distinction has been drawn between belief revision and belief update (see [6]). The former deals with situations where the objective facts describing the world do not change (so that only the beliefs of the
doi:10.1111/j.17552567.2011.01119.x Everything is Knowable – How to Get to Know Whether a Proposition is Truetheo_1119 1..22
, 2012
"... Abstract: Fitch showed that not every true proposition can be known in due time; in other words, that not every proposition is knowable. Moore showed that certain propositions cannot be consistently believed. A more recent dynamic phrasing of Mooresentences is that not all propositions are known af ..."
Abstract

Cited by 2 (1 self)
 Add to MetaCart
Abstract: Fitch showed that not every true proposition can be known in due time; in other words, that not every proposition is knowable. Moore showed that certain propositions cannot be consistently believed. A more recent dynamic phrasing of Mooresentences is that not all propositions are known after their announcement, i.e., not every proposition is successful. Fitch’s and Moore’s results are related, as they equally apply to standard notions of knowledge and belief (S 5 and KD45, respectively). If we interpret ‘successful ’ as ‘known after its announcement ’ and ‘knowable ’ as ‘known after some announcement’, successful implies knowable. Knowable does not imply successful: there is a proposition j that is not known after its announcement but there is another announcement after which j is known. We show that all propositions are knowable in the more general sense that for each proposition, it can become known or its negation can become known. We can get to know whether it is true: �(Kj ⁄ K¬j). This result comes at a price. We cannot get to know whether the proposition was true. This restricts the philosophical relevance of interpreting ‘knowable ’ as ‘known after an announcement’. Keywords: modal logic, knowability, Fitch’s paradox, dynamic epistemics, public announcements 1. Successful – the Historical Record