In ‘belief revision’ a theory is revised with a formula φ resulting in a revised theory . Typically, is in , one has to give up belief in by a process of retraction, and φ is in . We propose to model belief revision in a dynamic epistemic logic. In this setting, we typically have an information state (pointed Kripke model) for the theory wherein the agent believes the negation of the revision formula, i.e., wherein is true. The revision with (...) φ is a program *φ that transforms this information state into a new information state. The transformation is described by a dynamic modal operator [*φ], that is interpreted as a binary relation [ [*φ] ] between information states. The next information state is computed from the current information state and the belief revision formula. If the revision is successful, the agent believes φ in the resulting state, i.e., Bφ is then true. To make this work, as information states we propose ‘doxastic epistemic models’ that represent both knowledge and degrees of belief. These are multi-modal and multi-agent Kripke models. They are constructed from preference relations for agents, and they satisfy various characterizable multi-agent frame properties. Iterated, revocable, and higher-order belief revision are all quite natural in this setting. We present, for an example, five different ways of such dynamic belief revision. One can also see that as a non-deterministic epistemic action with two alternatives, where one is preferred over the other, and there is a natural generalization to general epistemic actions with preferences. (shrink)

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.

Pit is a multi-player card game that simulates the commodities trading market, and where actions consist of bidding and of swapping cards. We present a formal description of the knowledge and change of knowledge in that game. The description is in a standard language for dynamic epistemics expanded with assignment. Assignment is necessary to describe that cards change hands. The formal description is a prerequisite to model Pit in game theory. The main contribution of this paper should be seen as (...) the rigorous formalization of all knowledge in Pit. (shrink)

Take your average publication on the dynamics of knowledge. In one of its first paragraphs you will probably encounter a phrase like “a logic of public announcements was first proposed by Plaza in 1989 (Plaza 1989).” Tracking down this publication seems easy, because googling its title ‘Logics of Public Communications’ takes you straight to Jan Plaza’s website where it is online available in the author’s own version, including, on that page, very helpful and full bibliographic references to the proceedings in (...) which it originally appeared. Those proceedings are then somewhat harder to find. In fact, I have never seen them. Unfortunately, for the research community, Plaza’s work has never been followed up by a journal version. I am very grateful to the editor Wiebe van der Hoek of the journal ‘Knowledge, Rationality, and Action’ to correct this omission.Plaza’s work is reprinted as such, without an update encompassing more than fifteen additional years of research in this area. This commentary aims to provide some background to bridge that gap. (shrink)

In unconditionally secure protocols, a sender and receiver are able to communicate their secrets to each other without the eavesdropper(s) being able to learn the secret, even when the eavesdropper intercepts the entire communication. We investigate such protocols for the special case of deals of cards over players, where two players aim to communicate to each other their hand of cards without the remaining player(s) learning a single card from either hand. In this contribution we show that a particular protocol (...) of length strictly larger than two (i.e., consisting of more than just one announcement by one player, and one other announcement by the other player) is after all not acceptable, and therefore does not constitute a new solution. The demonstration requires a detailed case-based analysis. The result may bring a general approach to arbitrary finite-length protocols closer. (shrink)