Johan van Benthem
University of Amsterdam
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Johan van Benthem.
Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics | 2007
Johan van Benthem
We show how belief revision can be treated systematically in the format of dynamicepistemic logic, when operators of conditional belief are added. The core engine consists of definable update rules for changing plausibility relations between worlds, which have been proposed independently in the dynamic-epistemic literature on preference change. Our analysis yields two new types of modal result. First, we obtain complete logics for concrete mechanisms of belief revision, based on compositional reduction axioms. Next, we show how various abstract postulates for belief revision can be analyzed by standard modal frame correspondences for model-changing operations.We show how belief revision can be treated systematically in the format of dynamicepistemic logic, when operators of conditional belief are added. The core engine consists of definable update rules for changing plausibility relations between worlds, which have been proposed independently in the dynamic-epistemic literature on preference change. Our analysis yields two new types of modal result. First, we obtain complete logics for concrete mechanisms of belief revision, based on compositional reduction axioms. Next, we show how various abstract postulates for belief revision can be analyzed by standard modal frame correspondences for model-changing operations.
Archive | 2014
Johan van Benthem
This book develops a new view of logic as a theory of information-driven agency and intelligent interaction between many agents – with conversation, argumentation, and games as guiding examples. It provides one uniform account of dynamic logics for acts of inference, observation, questions, and communication, that can handle both update of knowledge and revision of beliefs. It then extends the dynamic style of analysis to include changing preferences and goals, temporal processes, group action, and strategic interaction in games. Throughout, the book develops a mathematical theory unifying all these systems, and positioning them at the interface of logic, philosophy, computer science, and game theory. A series of further chapters explores repercussions of the ‘dynamic stance’ for these areas, as well as cognitive science.
Springer Verlag; 2007. | 2007
Marco Aiello; Ian Pratt-Hartmann; Johan van Benthem
What is Spatial Logic?.- First-Order Mereotopology.- Axioms, Algebras and Topology.- Qualitative Spatial Reasoning Using Constraint Calculi.- Modal Logics of Space.- Topology and Epistemic Logic.- Logical Theories for Fragments of Elementary Geometry.- Locales and Toposes as Spaces.- Spatial Logic + Temporal Logic = ?.- Dynamic Topological Logic.- Logic of Space-Time and Relativity Theory.- Discrete Spatial Models.- Real Algebraic Geometry and Constraint Databases.- Mathematical Morphology.- Spatial Reasoning and Ontology: Parts, Wholes, and Locations.
Journal of Philosophical Logic | 1991
Johan van Benthem
ConclusionsA number of general points behind the story of this paper may be worth setting out separately, now that we have come to the end.There is perhaps one obvious omission to be addressed right away. Although the word “information” has occurred throughout this paper, it must have struck the reader that we have had nothing to say on what information is. In this respect, our theories may be like those in physics: which do not explain what “energy” is (a notion which seems quite similar to “information” in several ways), but only give some basic laws about its behaviour and transmission.The eventual recommendation made here has been to use a broad type-theoretic framework for studying various more classical and more dynamic notions of proposition in their interaction. This is not quite the viewpoint advocated by many current authors in the area, who argue for a whole-sale switch from a ‘static’ to a ‘dynamic’ perspective on propositions. This is not the place, however, to survey the conceptual arguments for and against such a more radical move.This still leaves many questions about possible reductions from one perspective to another. For instance, it would seem that classical systems ought to serve as a ‘limiting case’, which should still be valid after procedural details of some cognitive process have been forgotten. There are various ways of implementing the desired correspondence: e.g. by considering extreme cases with ⫅ equal to identity, or, in the pure relational algebra framework by considering only pairs (x, x). What we shall want then are reductions of dynamic logics, in those special cases, to classical logic. But perhaps also, more sophisticated views are possible. How do we take a piece of ‘dynamic’ prose, remove control instructions and the like, and obtain a piece of ‘classical’ text, suitable for inference ‘in the light of eternity’?There is also a more technical side to the matter of ‘reduction’. By now, Logic has reached such a state of ‘inter-translatability’ that almost all known variant logics can be embedded into each other, via suitable translations. In particular, once an adequate semantic has been given for a new system, this usually induces an embedding into standard logic: as we know, e.g., for the case of Modal Logic. Like-wise, all systems of dynamic interpretation or inference proposed so far admit of direct embedding into an ordinary ‘static’ predicate logic having explicit transition predicates (cf. van Benthem 1988b). Thus, our moral is this. The issue is not whether the new systems of information structure or processing are essentially beyond the expressive resources of traditional logical systems: for, they are not. The issue is rather which interesting phenomena and questions will be put into the right focus by them.The next broad issue concerns the specific use of the perspective proposed here, vis-à-vis concrete proposals for information-oriented or dynamic semantics. The general strategy advocated here is to locate some suitable base calculus and then consider which ‘extras’ are peculiar to the proposal. For instance, this is the spirit in which modal S4 would be a base logic of information models, and intuitionistic logicthe special theory devoting itself to upward persistent propositions. Or, with the examples in Section 4.1, the underlying base logic is our relational algebra, whereas, say, ordinary updates then impose special properties, such as ‘idempotence’:
Journal of Philosophical Logic | 2009
Johan van Benthem; Jelle Gerbrandy; Tomohiro Hoshi; Eric Pacuit
Studia Logica | 2009
Johan van Benthem; Jelle Gerbrandy; Barteld Kooi
xRy \Rightarrow yRy
International Game Theory Review | 2007
Johan van Benthem
Journal of Logic, Language and Information | 2002
Johan van Benthem
Does this kind of application presuppose the existence of one distinguished base logic, of which all others are extensions? This would be attractive-and some form of relational algebra or linear logic might be a reasonable candidate. Nevertheless, the enterprise does not rest on this outcome. What matters is an increased sensitivity to the ‘landscape’ of dynamic logics, just as with the ‘Categorial Hierarchy’ in Categorial Grammar (cf. van Benthem 1989a, 1991) where the family of logics with their interconnections seems more important than any specific patriarch.Finally, perhaps the most important issue in the new framework is the possibility of new kinds of questions arising precisely because of its differences from standard logic. Notably, given the option of regarding propositions as programs, it will be of interest to consider systematically which major questions about programming languages now make sense inside logic too.EXAMPLE. Correctness. When do we have
Journal of Philosophical Logic | 2009
Johan van Benthem; Patrick Girard; Olivier Roy
Archive | 1986
Johan van Benthem
\left[\kern-0.15em\left[ \pi \right]\kern-0.15em\right](\left[\kern-0.15em\left[ A \right]\kern-0.15em\right]) \subseteq \left[\kern-0.15em\left[ B \right]\kern-0.15em\right]