{"id":88,"date":"2017-12-11T18:43:04","date_gmt":"2017-12-11T18:43:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/?p=88"},"modified":"2020-10-06T08:53:27","modified_gmt":"2020-10-06T08:53:27","slug":"two-reformulations-of-the-verificationist-thesis-in-epistemic-temporal-logic-that-avoid-fitchs-paradox-by-alexandru-dragomir","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/two-reformulations-of-the-verificationist-thesis-in-epistemic-temporal-logic-that-avoid-fitchs-paradox-by-alexandru-dragomir\/","title":{"rendered":"TWO REFORMULATIONS OF THE VERIFICATIONIST THESIS IN EPISTEMIC TEMPORAL LOGIC THAT AVOID FITCH\u2019S PARADOX by Alexandru DRAGOMIR"},"content":{"rendered":"RRFA-VIII-1-2014-06.Dragomir<\/a>\n

Download PDF article<\/a><\/p>\n

Author: Alexandru DRAGOMIR<\/p>\n

Abstract\u200a: 1) We will begin by offering a short introduction to Epistemic Logic
\nand presenting Fitch\u2019s paradox in an epistemic\u2011modal logic. (2) Then, we will
\nproceed to presenting three Epistemic Temporal logical frameworks creat\u2011
\ned by Hoshi (2009)\u200a: TPAL (Temporal Public Announcement Logic), TAPAL
\n(Temporal Arbitrary Public Announcement Logic) and TPAL+P\u200a! (Temporal
\nPublic Announcement Logic with Labeled Past Operators). We will show how
\nHoshi stated the Verificationist Thesis in the language of TAPAL and analyze
\nhis argument on why this version of it is immune from paradox. (3) Edgington
\n(1985) offered an interpretation of the Verificationist Thesis that blocks Fitch\u2019s
\nparadox and we will propose a way to formulate it in a TAPAL\u2011based lan\u2011
\nguage. The language we will use is a combination of TAPAL and TPAL+P\u200a! with
\nan Indefinite (Unlabeled) Past Operator (TAPAL+P\u200a!+P). Using indexed satisfi\u2011
\nability relations (as introduced in (Wang 2010\u200a; 2011)) we will offer a prospec \u2011
\ntive semantics for this language. We will investigate whether the tentative re\u2011
\nformulation of Edgington\u2019s Verificationist Thesis in TAPAL+P\u200a!+P is free from
\nparadox and adequate to Edgington\u2019s ideas on how \u201eall truths are knowable\u201c
\nshould be interpreted.<\/p>\n

Keywords\u200a: Fitch\u2019s paradox, knowability, dynamic epistemic logic, epistemic
\nlogic, epistemic temporal logic, protocols<\/p>\n

References
\n1. \u00c5gotnes, T., P. Balbiani, H. van Ditmarsch, P. Seban. 2010. Group an\u2011
\nnouncement logic, Journal of Applied Logic, Volume 8, Issue 1, March 2010,
\npp. 62\u201181, ISSN 1570\u20118683, http\u200a:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jal.2008.12.002<\/a>.
\n2. Balbiani, P., A. Baltag, H. van Ditmarsch, A. Herzig, T. Hoshi, and T. de
\nLima. 2007. What can we achieve by arbitrary announcements\u200a? A dy\u2011
\nnamic take on Fitch\u2019s knowability. In Proceedings of the 11th conference
\non Theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge (TARK \u201a07). ACM, New
\nYork, NY, USA, pp. 42\u201151. DOI=10.1145\/1324249.1324259 http\u200a:\/\/doi.acm.org\/10.1145\/1324249.1324259<\/a>
\n3. van Benthem, J. 2004. \u201eWhat One May Come to Know\u201c. Analysis,
\n64(2)\u200a:95\u2011105, 2004.
\n4. Blackburn, P., M. de Rijke and Y. Venema. 2002. Modal Logic. Cambridge
\nUniversity Press.
\n5. Chalmers, David J. 2011. \u201eActuality and knowability\u201c. Analysis. 71
\n(3)\u200a:411\u2011419.<\/p>\n

6. van Ditmarsch, H.P., B.P. Kooi and W. van der Hoek. 2006. Dynamic
\nEpistemic Logic. Springer Publishing Company.
\n7. van Ditmarsch, H.P., W. van der Hoek, P. Iliev. 2012. \u201eEverything is
\nKnowable \u2013 How to Get to Know Whether a Proposition is True\u201c. Theoria,
\n78(2)\u200a:93 \u2011 114, 2012.
\n8. Edgington, D., 1985. \u201eThe Paradox of Knowability\u201c. Mind. 94\u200a: 557\u2013568.
\n9. Fagin, R., J.Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, M. Vardi. 1995. Reasoning about Knowledge.
\nCambridge, Massachusetts\u200a: The MIT Press 1995.
\n10. Groeneveld, W. and J. Gerbrandy. 1997. \u201eReasoning about Information
\nChange\u201c. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 6(2)\u200a:147\u2011169.
\n11. Hintikka, J. 1962. Knowledge and Belief. Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell University
\nPress.
\n12. Holliday, W.H. Forthcoming. \u201eEpistemic logic and epistemology\u201c. In
\nSven Ove Hansson, Vincent F. Hendricks, eds., Handbook of Formal
\nPhilosophy. Springer.
\n13. Hoshi, T. 2009. Epistemic dynamics and protocol information. PhD Thesis,
\nStanford University, ILLC DISSERTATION SERIES DS\u2011200X\u2011NN, http\u200a:\/\/www.illc.uva.nl\/Research\/Publications\/Dissertations\/DS\u20112009\u201108.text.pdf
\n14. Kooi, B.P. 2007. \u201eExpressivity and completeness for public update
\nlogics via reduction axioms\u201c. Journal of Applied Non\u2011Classical Logics,
\n17(2)\u200a:231\u2011253.
\n15. Plaza, J. 1989. \u201eLogics of public communcations\u201c. In M. L. Emrich, M. Z.
\nPfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, Z. W. Ras (eds.), Proc. 4th Inernational Symposium
\non Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, pages 201\u2013216. Oak Ridge National
\nLaboratory, ORNL\/DSRD\u201124.
\n16. Solecki, S., A. Baltag, and L.S. Moss. 1999. \u201eThe logic of public announce\u2011
\nments, common knowledge and private suspicions\u201c. Technical report,
\nCentrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam. CWI Report
\nSEN\u2011R9922.
\n17. Wang, Y. 2010. Epistemic Modelling and Protocol Dynamics. Dissertation,
\nUniversity of Amsterdam.
\n18. Wang, Y. 2011. \u201eReasoning about protocol change and knowledge\u201c. In
\nICLA\u201911 Proceedings of the 4th Indian conference on Logic and its ap\u2011
\nplications, pages. 189\u2011203, Springer\u2011Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg.
\n19. Williamson, T. 1987. \u201eOn the paradox of knowability\u201c. Mind 96\u200a:256\u201161.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Download PDF article Author: Alexandru DRAGOMIR Abstract\u200a: 1) We will begin by offering a short introduction to Epistemic Logic and presenting Fitch\u2019s paradox in an epistemic\u2011modal logic. (2) Then, we will proceed to presenting three Epistemic Temporal logical frameworks creat\u2011 ed by Hoshi (2009)\u200a: TPAL (Temporal Public Announcement Logic), TAPAL (Temporal Arbitrary Public Announcement Logic)… <\/p>\n

Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[58,59,60,56,57,61],"class_list":["post-88","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-alexandru-dragomir","tag-dynamic-epistemic-logic","tag-epistemic-logic","tag-epistemic-temporal-logic","tag-fitchs-paradox","tag-knowability","tag-protocols","xfolkentry","clearfix"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=88"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":156,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88\/revisions\/156"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.srfa.ro\/rrfa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}