We introduce the logic LRC, designed to describe and reason about agents’ abilities and capabilities in using resources. The proposed framework bridges two—up to now—mutually independent strands of literature: the one on logics of abilities and capabilities, developed within the theory of agency, and the one on logics of resources, motivated by program semantics. The logic LRC is suitable to describe and reason about key aspects of social behaviour in organizations. We prove a number of properties enjoyed by LRC and (...) its associated analytic calculus. These results lay at the intersection of the algebraic theory of unified correspondence and the theory of multitype calculi in structural proof theory. Case studies are discussed which showcase several ways in which this framework can be extended and enriched while retaining its basic properties, so as to model an array of issues, both practically and theoretically relevant, spanning from planning problems to the logical foundations of the theory of organizations. (shrink)

Baltag, Moss, and Solecki proposed an expansion of classical modal logic, called logic of epistemic actions and knowledge (EAK), in which one can reason about knowledge and change of knowledge. Kurz and Palmigiano showed how duality theory provides a flexible framework for modeling such epistemic changes, allowing one to develop dynamic epistemic logics on a weaker propositional basis than classical logic (for example an intuitionistic basis). In this paper we show how the techniques of Kurz and Palmigiano can be further (...) extended to define and axiomatize a bilattice logic of epistemic actions and knowledge (BEAK). Our propositional basis is a modal expansion of the well-known four-valued logic of Belnap and Dunn, which is a system designed for handling inconsistent as well as potentially conflicting information. These features, we believe, make our framework particularly promising from a computer science perspective. (shrink)

Intuitionistic epistemic logic by Artemov and Protopopescu (Rev Symb Log 9:266–298, 2016) accepts the axiom “if A, then A is known” (written $$A \supset K A$$ ) in terms of the Brouwer–Heyting–Kolmogorov interpretation. There are two variants of intuitionistic epistemic logic: one with the axiom “ $$KA \supset \lnot \lnot A$$ ” and one without it. The former is called $$\textbf{IEL}$$, and the latter is called $$\textbf{IEL}^{-}$$. The aim of this paper is to study first-order expansions (with equality and function (...) symbols) of these two intuitionistic epistemic logics. We define Hilbert systems with additional axioms called geometric axioms and sequent calculi with the corresponding rules to geometric axioms and prove that they are sound and complete for the intended semantics. We also prove the cut-elimination theorems for both sequent calculi. As a consequence, the disjunction property and existence property are established for the sequent calculi without geometric implications. Finally, we establish that our sequent calculi can also be formulated with admissible structural rules (i.e., in terms of a G3-style sequent calculus). (shrink)

We develop intuitionistic public announcement logic over intuitionistic \({\textbf{K}}\), \({{\textbf{K}}}{{\textbf{T}}}\), \({{\textbf{K}}}{{\textbf{4}}}\), and \({{\textbf{S}}}{{\textbf{4}}}\) with distributed knowledge. We reveal that a recursion axiom for the distributed knowledge is _not_ valid for a frame class discussed in [ 12 ] but valid for the restricted frame class introduced in [ 20, 26 ]. The semantic completeness of the static logics for this restricted frame class is established via the concept of pseudo-model.

This chapter presents a new semantics for inductive empirical knowledge. The epistemic agent is represented concretely as a learner who processes new inputs through time and who forms new beliefs from those inputs by means of a concrete, computable learning program. The agent’s belief state is represented hyper-intensionally as a set of time-indexed sentences. Knowledge is interpreted as avoidance of error in the limit and as having converged to true belief from the present time onward. Familiar topics are re-examined within (...) the semantics, such as inductive skepticism, the logic of discovery, Duhem’s problem, the articulation of theories by auxiliary hypotheses, the role of serendipity in scientific knowledge, Fitch’s paradox, deductive closure of knowability, whether one can know inductively that one knows inductively, whether one can know inductively that one does not know inductively, and whether expert instruction can spread common inductive knowledge—as opposed to mere, true belief—through a community of gullible pupils. (shrink)