MATERIAL Y MÉTODO
3.2. Criterios de exclusión
Another nice property of a quantale is that it can be paired with an object of the same nature as its underlying lattice, that is a sup-lattice, and form a couple! A quantaleQand a sup-latticesM form a pair(M, Q), where the sup-latticeM is referred to as a Q-right module. Because both M andQ
are sup-lattices, structure-preserving operations can be defined on the pair of the two. In other words, elements of the quantale, canacton the elements of the module through an operation whose result will still be an element of the module. This feature enables us to encodedynamics. On the first sight this pairing provides us with a dynamic, two-level (one level for the quantale, one for the module) logic of 6 connectives: ∨and∧on the module and∨,∧, and• on the quantale (for the time ignoring the residuals), plus the action of the quantale on the module. But we get more, since the action operation is join-preserving and has a Galois right adjoint. In formal terms:
Definition 2.1.4 AQ-right modulefor a quantale Qis a sup-latticeM with amodule action −.− :
M×Q→Mthat satisfies the following properties
1. Preserves arbitrary joins in both arguments, that is∀m, mi ∈M and ∀q, qi ∈Q
(_ i mi). q= _ i (mi. q) and m .( _ i qi) = _ i (m . qi).
2. Preserves the unit of quantale, that is∀m∈M m .1 =m
3. It is associative over the quantale multiplication, that is∀m∈M, q1, q2 ∈Q m .(q1•q2) = (m . q1). q2
The first axiom is the usual join-preservation requirement for sup-morphisms. It asks the action of quantale to preserve both the join-structure of the module and quantale. So the action is consistent with the sup-structure of both elements of the pair(M, Q). The second axioms says that if the quantales acts on the module with the unit of multiplication, then it is as if it has not acted on the module. This reflects the neutral nature of the unit 1, and says the actions preserves this neutral character. The thirds axiom connects the multiplication of the quantale with its action on the module, it says that if we act on the module with the multiplication of two elements of quantale, then we get the same effect as when we first act on the module with the first one and then with the second one.
The action has adjoints since it preserves arbitrary joins of module and quantale (axiom 1 above). More explicitly the action can be factorized to two unary operations
−. q:M →M
which preserves the joins on the module, and
m .−:Q→Q
which preserves the joins on the quantale. Each of these factorized operator s have an adjoint. These two adjoints are denoted as[q]−and{m}−, and we have
−. qa[q]− and m .− a {m}−
They are explicitly defined as follows
[q]m:=_{m0∈M |m0. q≤m} {m}m0 :=_{q∈Q|m . q≤m0}.
The first right adjoint[q]mis what will be focused on in our setting. [q]mis, by definition, the join of all elements of the module on which the quantale can act withqand the result will be less thanm. Since[q]mreturns the join of all such elements, it is said that it returns theweakestsuch element: the weakest element on whichq acts and the result impliesm. It is the weakest because any element of a join is less than the join
m0 ≤_{m0 ∈M |m0. q≤m}
This operation is referred to asweakest preconditionordynamic modalityin the literature [47, 45] and we will return to it in detail later.
Examples of Modules. Consider the example quantale of the set of all relations on a setX, that is
P(X×X)discussed before. It is easily seen that the powerset of a setP(X)is a complete lattice and it is the right module forP(X×X). The action of this quantale on its module is defined as follows
−.− : P(X)× P(X×X)→ P(X)
:: (T, R)7→T . R:={x∈X | ∃t∈T, tRx}.
This says that any relationRon the setX, can be seen as an operation: it takes a subset ofXas input, that isT and returns the elements ofX with which the elements ofT are related to via the relation
R. In other wordsT . R inputs a subset ofX and outputs the image of the relationR with regard to elements ofT.
A good reference on quantales is [77], another good reference that discusses the theory of modules is [53]. For applications of quantales in computing, linguistics and physics see [2, 24, 47, 56, 67, 74]. Systems. A quantale and its right module are usually considered together in a pair called asystem [2, 74]:
Definition 2.1.5 Asystemis a pair(M, Q)withQa quantale andM aQ-right module.
From a logical point of view, a system(M, Q) provides us with a two-sorted dynamic logic: the module constitutes a logic with two connectives∨and ∧. The elements of the quantale are part of another logic with three connectives (ignoring residuals): ∨, ∧, and•, which is moreover resource- sensitive with regard to•. But we have more: these two logics are not disconnected: one acts on the other one. So apart from the specialized connectives of each logic, we have the two adjoint connectives
m . qand[q]m. The system, thus, can be seen as a two-sorted logic with seven operators (to be precise 9 with residuals). This is the starting point of our logic (logic developed in this thesis). But first we have to enrich the system with our unary maps, discussed before, and their adjoints.
2.1.5 Epistemic Systems
We will enrich our system(M, Q)with unary operations that are homomorphisms of the system. We consider a special homomorphism from the system to itselff : (M, Q) → (M, Q), referred to as an
endomorphism. A system has two parts and thus these endomorphisms also have two parts, or they are a pair of endomorphisms: one the module and one on the quantale, satisfying some more conditions to be given below.
Definition 2.1.6 Asystem-endomorphism(M, Q) f- (M, Q)is a pair
fM :M →M , fQ:Q→QwherefM is a sup-endomorphism on the module,fQ is a sup endo- morphism on the quantale satisfying the following inequalities forq1, q2 ∈Qand for allm ∈M and q∈Q
fQ(q1•q2)≤fQ(q1)•fQ(q2) (2.2)
fM(m·q)≤fM(m)·fQ(q). (2.3)
The first two inequalities, referred to asunit andmultiplicationrespectively, makefQa lax quantale
homorphisms, preserving the quantale structure, that is joins, multiplication, and unit. The reason for laxity offQ (rather than full functoriality) has to do with our epistemic interpretation. The last inequality connects the quantale endomorphism to the module endomorphisms through the action of the quantale on the module. The reason for it being an inequality rather than an equality, again has to do with our knowledge applications and will be discussed in the next section on interpretation.
This notion of system homomorphism differs from the one in the literature since we do not fix the quantale Q. This means that our endomorphisms are not the same as system homomorphisms f : (M, Q)→(M0, Q0)defined in Joyal and Tierney [53] as follows
f(m·q) =f(m)·q .
Our endomorphisms are different since we have a pair of maps(fAQ, fAM), one on the module and one on the quantale as homomorphisms and connect them through the update inequality fM
A (m·q) ≤
fAM(m)·fAQ(q).
We call a system endowed with such endomorphisms anepistemic systemdefines as:
Definition 2.1.7 An epistemic system is a tuple (M, Q,{fA}A∈A) where (M, Q) is a system and
{fA}A∈Aare system-endomorphisms.
We define anatomistic epistemic system, which will be used in building concrete models as seman- tics of Dynamic Epistemic Logic [10] in chapter six.
Definition 2.1.8 An atomistic system is a system where both the moduleM and the quantaleQare atomic with their atoms denoted respectively asAtm(M) andAtm(Q), and moreover we have the following conditions
Ifm∈Atm(M)and q ∈Atm(Q) then m . q∈Atm(M) and also
Ifq, q0 ∈Atm(Q) then q • q0 ∈Atm(Q)
Definition 2.1.9 An atomistic epistemic system is an epistemic system whose underlying system is atomistic.
Although distributivity of the module is not needed for algebraic verification of properties of multi- agent systems such as the muddy children puzzle (see section 2.3 below), it will come handy in the
build of a complete single-succedent sequent calculus1. We define a distributive epistemic system, which will be used in proving completeness of our sequent calculus in chapter four.
Definition 2.1.10 A distributive epistemic system is an epistemic system whose module is distributive.
We have now defined all the mathematical objects we need for our logic, all summarized in the notion of an Epistemic systems. Next, we will interpret these notions in terms of knowledge and communication between agents.
1
2.2
Interpretation
In this section we explain how elements of an epistemic system are interpreted in a multi-agent context and are used to reason about knowledge of agents that changes due to the communications between the agents. We first interpret the elements of the module and the connectives on them, then the elements of quantale and their connectives, and then the mixed connectives, that is the action of the quantale on the module and its adjoint. In the second part, we use these interpretations to explain how the axioms of the epistemic system make sense in our multi-agent epistemic setting.
2.2.1 Epistemic Propositions
Elements of the modulem ∈ M stand for epistemic propositions. By this we mean they are the usual logical propositions with the join as disjunction, the meet as conjunction, and the order as logical entailment, but can also stand for epistemic attitudes.
m1≤m2 means m1entailsm2 m1∨m2 means m1orm2 m1∧m2 means m1andm2
Appearance.The epistemic part of the propositions is encoded in the unary operationfAM. We call this operatorfAM(m),appearanceof an agentAabout a propositionm. It takes an element of the module
mand returns the agent’s appearance about it. This appearance consists of the disjunction of all the propositions that an agent conceives as possible, if propositionmholds (or is true) in the real world. Two extreme cases of this operator are
• IffAM(m) =>then it stands for absence of information. The appearance is equal to the top of the lattice or the Truth proposition, sincemholds in the real worlds, but it appears to agentA
that any other proposition, no matter which one, holds. This is because>signifies the join of all the elements of the module, that is the disjunction of all the propositions. In other words it corresponds to absence of any information: agentAhas no knowledge (to be defined below).
• IffA(m) = mthen it stands for certain information, since propositionmholds both in the real
world and in agentA’s appearance of the world. That is agentA’s appearance is consistent with reality:mis true in reality and agentAknows it.
Using the order of the module, we can compare information of an agent about different propositions:
• If fAM(m) < fAM(m0) then agent A has strictly more information of proposition m than of propositionm0. In terms of appearance, this says that the appearance of agentAaboutmentails his appearance ofm0, and so is stronger than it. That is whyAhas more information aboutm
than aboutm0.
• IffAM(m)< fBM(m)then agentAhas strictly more information than agentB of propositionm, this is becauseA’s appearance aboutmimplies (and is thus stronger than)B’s appearance of it. Since the only property that appearance map satisfies is join-preservation, there can be no relation between the appearance of reality to an agent and the reality itself. In other words, an agent can have
wronginformation:
• Ifm6≤m0 but fAM(m)≤m0 then agentAhas been deluded since in realitymdoes not imply
m0, but it appears to agentAthat it does. So agentAhasincorrect informationfor example due to being deceived by another agent, a malfunctioning communication channel or corrupted data. SinceM is a sup-lattice and appearance preserves arbitrary joins, it should also preserve the empty join, or the join of the Falsum. This meansfAM(⊥) =⊥. What it means in an epistemic setting:
• IffAM(⊥) =⊥then if the Falsum holds in the real world, that is if there is a contradiction in the real worlds, it appears as it is to all the agents: they all have contradictory information.
Note that although preserving the false proposition, appearance has no relation with the True proposi- tion, or the top of the module, in particular we do not have the following in general
fAM(>)6=>
The appearance maps are our first and basic epistemic modality, however they are not theknowledge
modality, since all normal knowledge modalities preserve conjunction and appearance preserves dis- junction. But appearance has a Galois right adjoint that preserves conjunction explained belows.
Knowledge. We interpreted the fAM maps as appearances of agents and showed how it relates to the information content of agents about reality. Now we show that its adjoint, the meet preserving endomorphism on the module, stands for knowledge of agents about reality. For each agentA ∈ A
we introduce our knowledge modalityMA standing for agent A’s knowledge as the adjoint to the
appearance map, i.e.
fAM aMA .
By adjunction we have
fAM(m)≤m0 iff m≤MAm0,
which says if the appearance of an agent aboutmimpliesm0then ifmholds, the agent knows thatm0
and also the other way around. In other words, if all the propositions that appear to be true to agent
Awhen m holds, implym0, then wheneverm holds, agentA knowsm0. Using this inequality, the extreme cases of appearance will read as follows
• fAM(m) = > is equivalent tom ≤2M
A >, which means whenevermholds in reality, agentA
• fAM(m) = m is equivalent tom ≤2M
A m, which means whenevermholds in reality, agentA
knows it.
The wrong appearance or incorrect information will read aswrong knowledge:
• m m0 but fAM(m) ≤m0 is equivalent tom m0 but m ≤2MA m0, which means ifmis
truem0is not, but ifmholds, agentAknows thatm0, which means he has wrong knowledge or belief aboutm0, sincem0is not true.
We can define our knowledge modality in terms of appearances as
2M
A m
0 =_
{m|fAM(m)≤m0}
that is as the weakest proposition whose appearance impliesm0.
Properties of knowledge.Some basic properties ofMA is its preservations of arbitrary meets:
MA( ^ i mi) = ^ i MAmi.
Hence it preserves the empty meet and binary meets, that is
MA>=> MA(m∧m
0) =
MAm∧MAm
0,
This implies that it is also order-preserving or monotone, that is if m≤m0 then MAm≤MAm
0
.
These are the properties of thenormal modalityor axiomK in modal logics. The connection to other axioms such asT,4,5will be discussed in more detail in the next section. This modality covers both knowledge and belief. In contexts where no wrong belief is allowed, it can be read as knowledge, i.e.
justified true belief. Otherwise, it stands for justified belief.
Example. Consider a simple scenario with two playersA, Band a refereeC. In front of everybody, the referee throws a fair coin, catches it in his palm and fully covers it, before anybody (including himself) can see on which side the coin has landed. The players and the referee do not know on which side the coin has landed: each of them think it might have landed heads up or tails up. We denote the proposition that says ‘coin has landed heads up’ byH, and the proposition that says ‘coin has landed tails up’ byT. The appearance maps for each agent, in case the coin has landed heads, are
fAM(H) =fBM(H) =fCM(H) =H∨T
, which means all the agents are uncertain about the face of the coin. Similarly in case the coin has landed tails:
We can now calculate the knowledge of agents in each case:
H≤2MA(H∨T) and T ≤2MA(H∨T)
and similarly forBandC, which means each agent is uncertain about the face of the coin. 2.2.2 Epistemic Actions
Elements of the quantaleq ∈ Qare interpreted as epistemic programs or epistemic actions. That is, actions that change the information state of agents. The order of the quantale is the order of non- determinism of these actions
q1 ≤q2 means actionq1is more deterministic than actionq2
This is for example becauseq2is obtained fromq1by making it depend on the outcome of a coin-toss.
Accordingly, the join of quantale is interpreted as non-deterministic choice of actions
q1∨q2 means either actionq1or actionq2 is happening
The multiplication of the quantale is interpreted as sequential composition of actions:
q1•q2 means first actionq1 happens then actionq2
The multiplicative unit1ofQis the void epistemic action, that is the action that does nothing and is referred to asskipin literature.
Appearance. Similar to the module, the appearance mapsfAQ :Q→Qencode how agents perceive actions. fAQ(q)interprets as all the actions that appear to agentAas happening where in reality action
qis happening. The two extreme cases are interpreted the same as in the module
• fAQ(q) = >: means agentAhas no information about what action is happening, every action seem possible to him.
• fAQ(q) =q: means agentAhas certain information about what action is happening: actionqis happening and agentAis aware of it.