Open Problems in Logical Dynamics

In recent years, a number of 'dynamic epistemic logics' have been developed for dealing with information, communication, and interaction. This paper is a survey of conceptual issues and open mathematical problems emanating from this development. 1 Logical Dynamics The traditional paradigm of logic is drawing a conclusion from some given premises. But derivation from data already at our disposal is just one way in which information can be obtained. We can also observe new facts, or just ask some better-informed person whom we trust. Concomitantly with all this information flow, our knowledge and beliefs change, and this adaptation process may even be triggered by further cues. Such cognitive actions are of logical interest per se, and their explicit study and its various repercussions has been described as a 'Dynamic Turn' in logic (van Benthem 1996). In particular, relevant actions in this broader setting need not be single-agent tasks such as drawing a conclusion or observing some fact. After all, perhaps the simplest logical scenario for getting or giving information is asking a question. But this essentially involves information flow between two agents, and their mutual epistemic and 'social' interactions as the question is asked and an answer is given. An excellent framework for multi-agent dynamic behaviour in communication is epistemic logic (introduced in Section 2), suitably 'dynamified' by using ideas from the dynamic logic of actions. Section 3 is about the best-explored system of this kind, viz. the dynamic logic of public announcements. Section 4 generalizes this to general dynamic-epistemic logic of actions or events whose observation conveys information. The resulting technical questions here blend into issues about more classical logical systems, which are discussed in Section 5 on first-order and fixed-point logics. But knowledge and ignorance are not the only attitudes of participants in a conversation. They also have beliefs about their current situation and expectations about the future. These are revised as observation and communication take place. Thus, epistemic dynamics runs into belief revision. Section 6 is devoted to links between dynamicepistemic logic and belief revision theory as developed in AI and related areas.

[1]  Wolfgang Spohn,et al.  Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States , 1988 .

[2]  Hans Rott,et al.  Change, choice and inference , 2001 .

[3]  J. Benthem Games in dynamic epistemic logic , 2001 .

[4]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Semantic Parallels in Natural Language and Computation , 1989 .

[5]  Kevin T. Kelly The Logic of Reliable Inquiry , 1996 .

[6]  Balder ten Cate Interpolation for extended modal languages , 2005, J. Symb. Log..

[7]  J. Benthem,et al.  Diversity of Logical Agents in Games , 2004 .

[8]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  The complexity of reasoning about knowledge and time , 1986, STOC '86.

[9]  W. van der Hoek,et al.  Epistemic logic for AI and computer science , 1995, Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science.

[10]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reasoning about knowledge , 1995 .

[11]  Dov M. Gabbay,et al.  Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming (vol. 1) , 1993 .

[12]  B. T. Cate,et al.  Model theory for extended modal languages , 2005 .

[13]  Jon Barwise,et al.  Admissible sets and structures , 1975 .

[14]  Ramaswamy Ramanujam,et al.  A Knowledge Based Semantics of Messages , 2003, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[15]  Ron van der Meyden,et al.  Common Knowledge and Update in Finite Environments , 1998, Inf. Comput..

[16]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Conditional Probability Meets Update Logic , 2003, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[17]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  What one may come to know , 2004 .

[18]  Lawrence S. Moss,et al.  The Undecidability of Iterated Modal Relativization , 2005, Stud Logica.

[19]  W. van der Hoek,et al.  Concurrent Dynamic Epistemic Logic , 2003 .

[20]  Pierre-Yves Schobbens,et al.  Counterfactuals and Updates as Inverse Modalities , 1996, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[21]  J. Gerbrandy Bisimulations on Planet Kripke , 1999 .

[22]  Wilfrid Hodges,et al.  Logic and Games , 2001 .

[23]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Rational Dynamics and Epistemic Logic in Games , 2007, IGTR.

[24]  Robert van Rooy,et al.  Quality and Quantity of Information Exchange , 2003, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[25]  Sergei N. Artëmov Logic of Proofs , 1994, Ann. Pure Appl. Log..

[26]  D. Harrison,et al.  Vicious Circles , 1995 .

[27]  Frank Veltman,et al.  Defaults in update semantics , 1996, J. Philos. Log..

[28]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Extensive Games as Process Models , 2002, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[29]  Sergei N. Artëmov Evidence-Based Common Knowledge , 2005 .

[30]  Robert Stalnaker Extensive and strategic forms: Games and models for games , 1999 .

[31]  J.F.A.K. van Benthem Structural properties of dynamic reasoning , 2003 .

[32]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Belief Revision , 1995 .

[33]  Johan van Benthem Logics for information update , 2001 .

[34]  K. Jon Barwise,et al.  Three Views of Common Knowledge , 1988, TARK.

[35]  Greg Restall,et al.  An Introduction to Substructural Logics , 2000 .

[36]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Modal Logic , 2001, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science.

[37]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  An Essay on Sabotage and Obstruction , 2005, Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning.

[38]  Darko Sarenac,et al.  The Geometry of Knowledge , 2003 .

[39]  Jörg Flum,et al.  Finite model theory , 1995, Perspectives in Mathematical Logic.

[40]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Interpolation, preservation, and pebble games , 1999, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[41]  W. Hoek,et al.  Dynamic Epistemic Logic , 2007 .

[42]  Krister Segerberg,et al.  Belief Revision From the Point of View of Doxastic Logic , 1995, Log. J. IGPL.

[43]  Christof Löding,et al.  Solving the Sabotage Game Is PSPACE-Hard , 2003, MFCS.

[44]  Yde Venema,et al.  Dynamic Logic by David Harel, Dexter Kozen and Jerzy Tiuryn. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hardback: ISBN 0–262–08289–6, $50, xv + 459 pages , 2002, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming.

[45]  Vincent F. Hendricks,et al.  Active Agents , 2003, J. Log. Lang. Inf..

[46]  Lawrence S. Moss,et al.  The Logic of Public Announcements and Common Knowledge and Private Suspicions , 1998, TARK.

[47]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  The Complexity of Reasoning about Knowledge and Time. I. Lower Bounds , 1989, J. Comput. Syst. Sci..

[48]  Jerzy Tiuryn,et al.  Dynamic logic , 2001, SIGA.

[49]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  A Mini-Guide to Logic in Action , 2013 .

[50]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Exploring logical dynamics , 1996, Studies in logic, language and information.

[51]  Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh,et al.  Algebra and Sequent Calculus for Epistemic Actions , 2005, LCMAS.

[52]  Hirofumi Katsuno,et al.  On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising It , 1991, KR.

[53]  F.J.M.M. Veltman,et al.  Logics for conditionals. , 1985 .

[54]  Colin Stirling,et al.  Bisimulation, Modal Logic and Model Checking Games , 1999, Logic Journal of the IGPL.

[55]  Jaroslav Peregrin Meaning : the dynamic turn , 2003 .

[56]  J. Benthem DYNAMIC BITS AND PIECES , 1997 .

[57]  Ji Ruan,et al.  Exploring the Update Universe , 2004 .

[58]  Marc Pauly,et al.  Logic for social software , 2000 .

[59]  M. de Rijke Extending modal logic , 1993 .

[60]  J. Benthem One is a Lonely Number: on the logic of communication , 2003 .

[61]  Adam J. Grove,et al.  Two modellings for theory change , 1988, J. Philos. Log..

[62]  B. D. ten Cate,et al.  Internalizing epistemic actions , 2002 .

[63]  Marco Hollenberg,et al.  Logical questions concerning the μ-calculus: Interpolation, Lyndon and Łoś-Tarski , 2000, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[64]  Johan van Benthem,et al.  Reduction axioms for epistemic actions , 2004 .