IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v66y2018i4d10.1007_s00199-017-1078-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Formalization of information: knowledge and belief

Author

Listed:
  • Jong Jae Lee

    (Wuhan University)

Abstract

Billingsley (Probability and measure, Wiley, New Jersey, 1995) and Dubra and Echenique (Math Soc Sci 47(2):177–185, 2004) provide an example to show that the formalization of information by $$\sigma $$ σ -algebras and by partitions need not be equivalent. Although Hervés-Beloso and Monteiro (Econ Theory 54(2):405–418, 2013) provide a method to generate a $$\sigma $$ σ -algebra from a partition and another method for going in the opposite direction, we show that their two methods are in fact based on two different notions of information: (i) information as belief, (ii) information as knowledge. If information is conceived to allow for falsehoods, case (i) above, the equivalence between $$\sigma $$ σ -algebras and partitions holds after applying the notion of posterior completion suggested by Brandenburger and Dekel (J Math Econ 16(3):237–245, 1987). If information is conceived not to allow for falsehoods, case (ii) above, the equivalence holds only for measurable partitions and countably generated $$\sigma $$ σ -algebras.

Suggested Citation

  • Jong Jae Lee, 2018. "Formalization of information: knowledge and belief," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(4), pages 1007-1022, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:66:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s00199-017-1078-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-017-1078-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-017-1078-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-017-1078-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. Aumann, 1999. "Interactive epistemology II: Probability," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(3), pages 301-314.
    2. Robert J. Aumann, 1999. "Interactive epistemology I: Knowledge," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(3), pages 263-300.
    3. Bacharach, Michael, 1985. "Some extensions of a claim of Aumann in an axiomatic model of knowledge," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 167-190, October.
    4. Brandenburger, Adam & Dekel, Eddie, 1987. "Common knowledge with probability 1," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3), pages 237-245, June.
    5. Joseph Y. Halpern, 1999. "Hypothetical knowledge and counterfactual reasoning," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(3), pages 315-330.
    6. Nabil I. Al-Najjar, 2009. "Decision Makers as Statisticians: Diversity, Ambiguity, and Learning," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 77(5), pages 1371-1401, September.
    7. Dubra, Juan & Echenique, Federico, 2004. "Information is not about measurability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 177-185, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fukuda, Satoshi, 2019. "Epistemic foundations for set-algebraic representations of knowledge," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 73-82.
    2. Áron Tóbiás, 2021. "A unified epistemological theory of information processing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 63-83, February.
    3. Áron Tóbiás, 2023. "Cognitive limits and preferences for information," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 46(1), pages 221-253, June.
    4. Áron Tóbiás, 2021. "Meet meets join: the interaction between pooled and common knowledge," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(4), pages 989-1019, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Áron Tóbiás, 2023. "Cognitive limits and preferences for information," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 46(1), pages 221-253, June.
    2. Fukuda, Satoshi, 2019. "Epistemic foundations for set-algebraic representations of knowledge," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 73-82.
    3. Áron Tóbiás, 2021. "Meet meets join: the interaction between pooled and common knowledge," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(4), pages 989-1019, December.
    4. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Bayesian game theorists and non-Bayesian players," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1420-1454, November.
    5. Tarbush, Bassel, 2016. "Counterfactuals in “agreeing to disagree” type results," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 125-133.
    6. Noguchi, Mitsunori, 2018. "Alpha cores of games with nonatomic asymmetric information," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 1-12.
    7. Samet, Dov, 2010. "Agreeing to disagree: The non-probabilistic case," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 169-174, May.
    8. Áron Tóbiás, 2021. "A unified epistemological theory of information processing," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(1), pages 63-83, February.
    9. John Geanakoplos, 1993. "Common Knowledge," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1062, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    10. , & ,, 2011. "Agreeing to agree," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(2), May.
    11. Shmuel Zamir, 2008. "Bayesian games: Games with incomplete information," Discussion Paper Series dp486, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    12. Giovanna Devetag & Hykel Hosni & Giacomo Sillari, 2012. "You Better Play 7: Mutual versus Common Knowledge of Advice in a Weak-link Experiment," LEM Papers Series 2012/01, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    13. Bonanno, G. & Nehring, K., 1995. "Intersubjective Consistency of Beliefs and the Logic of Common Belief," Department of Economics 95-08, California Davis - Department of Economics.
    14. Bonanno, Giacomo & Nehring, Klaus, 1998. "On the logic and role of Negative Introspection of Common Belief," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 17-36, January.
    15. Tsakas, Elias, 2007. "Aggregate information, common knowledge, and agreeing not to bet," Working Papers in Economics 254, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    16. Christian Bach & Jérémie Cabessa, 2012. "Common knowledge and limit knowledge," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(3), pages 423-440, September.
    17. Feinberg, Yossi, 2005. "Subjective reasoning--dynamic games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 54-93, July.
    18. Bernard Walliser, 1991. "Logique épistémique et théorie des jeux," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 42(5), pages 801-832.
    19. Schmidt, Christian, 2003. "Que reste-t-il du Treatise on Probability de Keynes?," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 79(1), pages 37-55, Mars-Juin.
    20. Robin Cubitt & Robert Sugden, 2005. "Common reasoning in games: a resolution of the paradoxes of ‘common knowledge of rationality’," Discussion Papers 2005-17, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Information; $$sigma $$ σ -Algebras; S5 knowledge; KD45 belief; Formalization of information;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C60 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - General
    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:66:y:2018:i:4:d:10.1007_s00199-017-1078-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.