Abstract
To describe simultaneous knowledge updates for different subgroups we propose anepistemic language with dynamic operators for actions. The language is interpreted onequivalence states (S5 states). The actions are interpreted as state transformers. Two crucial action constructors are learning and local choice. Learning isthe dynamic equivalent of common knowledge. Local choice aids in constraining theinterpretation of an action to a functional interpretation (state transformer).Bisimilarity is preserved under execution of actions. The language is applied todescribe various actions in card games.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baltag, A., 1999, “A logic of epistemic actions,” in (electronic) Proceedings of the ESSLLI 1999 Workshop on Foundations and Applications of Collective Agent Based Systems. W. van der Hoek, J.-J. Meyer, and C. Witteveen, eds., Utrecht University.
Baltag, A., Moss, L., and Solecki, S., 2000, “The logic of public announcements, common knowledge and private suspicions,” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, accepted.
Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., and Venema, Y., 2001, Modal Logic, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 53, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., and Vardi, M., 1995, Reasoning about Knowledge, Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Gerbrandy, J., 1999, “Bisimulations on planet Kripke,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam, ILLC Dissertation Series DS-1999-01.
Gerbrandy, J. and Groeneveld, W., 1997, “Reasoning about information change,” Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 6, 147–169.
Goldblatt, R., 1992, Logics of Time and Computation, 2nd edn., CSLI Lecture Notes, No. 7, Stanford,CA: CSLI Publications.
Harel, D., 1984, “Dynamic logic,” pp. 497–604 in Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. II, D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Harel, D., Kozen, D., and Tiuryn, J., 2000, Dynamic Logic, Foundations of Computing Series, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Meyer, J.-J. and van der Hoek, W., 1995, Epistemic Logic for AI and Computer Science, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 41, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Parikh, R., 1987, “Knowledge and the problem of logical omniscience,” pp. 432–439 in Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, R. Zas and M. Zemankova, eds., Amsterdam: North Holland.
Peleg, D., 1987, “Concurrent dynamic logic,” Journal of the ACM 34, 450–479.
Plaza, J., 1989, “Logics of public communications,” pp. 201–216 in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, M. Emrich, M. Pfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, and Z. Ras, eds., Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
van Ditmarsch, H., 1999, “The logic of knowledge games: Showing a card,” pp. 35–42 in Proceedings of the BNAIC 99, Maastricht University, Maastricht, E. Postma and M. Gyssens, eds.
van Ditmarsch, H., 2000, “Knowledge games,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Groningen, ILLC Dissertation Series DS-2000-06.
van Ditmarsch, H., 2001a, “Knowledge games,” Bulletin of Economic Research 53, 249–273.
van Ditmarsch, H., 2001b, “The semantics of concurrent knowledge actions,” in (electronic) Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2001 Workshop on Logic and Games, M. Pauly and G. Sandu, eds., University of Helsinki.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Ditmarsch, H.P. Descriptions of Game Actions. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 11, 349–365 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015590229647
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015590229647