In this paper, we first propose a simple formal language to specify types of agents in terms of necessary conditions for their announcements. Based on this language, types of agents are treated as ‘first-class citizens’ and studied extensively in various dynamic epistemic frameworks which are suitable for reasoning about knowledge and agent types via announcements and questions. To demonstrate our approach, we discuss various versions of Smullyan’s Knights and Knaves puzzles, including the Hardest Logic Puzzle Ever (HLPE) proposed by Boolos (...) (in Harv Rev Philos 6:62–65, 1996). In particular, we formalize HLPE and verify a classic solution to it. Moreover, we propose a spectrum of new puzzles based on HLPE by considering subjective (knowledge-based) agent types and relaxing the implicit epistemic assumptions in the original puzzle. The new puzzles are harder than the previously proposed ones in the literature, in the sense that they require deeper epistemic reasoning. Surprisingly, we also show that a version of HLPE in which the agents do not know the others’ types does not have a solution at all. Our formalism paves the way for studying these new puzzles using automatic model checking techniques. (shrink)

We elaborate on semantically labelled syntax trees that provide a method of proving the non-existence of modal formulae satisfying certain syntactic properties and defining a given class of frames and use them to show that there are classes of Kripke frames that are definable by both non-Sahlqvist and Sahlqvist formulae, but the latter requires more propositional variables.

Dynamic epistemic logics provide an account of the evolution of agents’ belief and knowledge when they learn the occurrence of an event. These logics started to become popular about 20 years ago and by now there exists a huge number of publications about them. The present paper briefly summarises the existing body of literature, discusses some problems and shortcomings, and proposes some avenues for future research.

We introduce frame-equivalence games tailored for reasoning about the size, modal depth, number of occurrences of symbols and number of different propositional variables of modal formulae defining a given frame property. Using these games, we prove lower bounds on the above measures for a number of well-known modal axioms; what is more, for some of the axioms, we show that they are optimal among the formulae defining the respective class of frames.