TY - JOUR
T1 - Defining knowledge in terms of belief
T2 - The modal logic perspective
AU - Halpern, Joseph Y.
AU - Samet, Dov
AU - Segev, Ella
N1 - Funding Information:
§7. Acknowledgments. Joe Halpern was supported in part by NSF under grants ITR-0325453 and IIS-0534064, and by AFOSR under grant FA9550-05-1-0055. Dov Samet was supported in part by the Israeli Science Foundation under grant 891/04. Ella Segev is currently at the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2009 Association for Symbolic Logic.
PY - 2009/9/1
Y1 - 2009/9/1
N2 - The question of whether knowledge is definable in terms of belief, which has played an important role in epistemology for the last 50 years, is studied here in the framework of epistemic and doxastic logics. Three notions of definability are considered: explicit definability, implicit definability, and reducibility, where explicit definability is equivalent to the combination of implicit definability and reducibility. It is shown that if knowledge satisfies any set of axioms contained in S5, then it cannot be explicitly defined in terms of belief. S5 knowledge can be implicitly defined by belief, but not reduced to it. On the other hand, S4.4 knowledge and weaker notions of knowledge cannot be implicitly defined by belief, but can be reduced to it by defining knowledge as true belief. It is also shown that S5 knowledge cannot be reduced to belief and justification, provided that there are no axioms that involve both belief and justification.
AB - The question of whether knowledge is definable in terms of belief, which has played an important role in epistemology for the last 50 years, is studied here in the framework of epistemic and doxastic logics. Three notions of definability are considered: explicit definability, implicit definability, and reducibility, where explicit definability is equivalent to the combination of implicit definability and reducibility. It is shown that if knowledge satisfies any set of axioms contained in S5, then it cannot be explicitly defined in terms of belief. S5 knowledge can be implicitly defined by belief, but not reduced to it. On the other hand, S4.4 knowledge and weaker notions of knowledge cannot be implicitly defined by belief, but can be reduced to it by defining knowledge as true belief. It is also shown that S5 knowledge cannot be reduced to belief and justification, provided that there are no axioms that involve both belief and justification.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84989166150&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S1755020309990141
DO - 10.1017/S1755020309990141
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84989166150
VL - 2
SP - 469
EP - 487
JO - Review of Symbolic Logic
JF - Review of Symbolic Logic
SN - 1755-0203
IS - 3
ER -