IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jetheo/v70y1996i1p249-256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"Knowing Whether," "Knowing That," and The Cardinality of State Spaces

Author

Listed:
  • Hart, Sergiu
  • Heifetz, Aviad
  • Samet, Dov

Abstract

We introduce a new operator on information structures which we call `knowing whether' as opposed to the standard knowledge operator which may be called `knowing that'. The difference between these operators is simple. Saying that an agent knows t h a t a certain event occurred implies that this event indeed occurred, while saying that the agent knows w h e t h e r an event occurred does not imply that the event occurred. (Formally, knowing whether X means that either it is known that X occurred or it is known that X did not occur.) We show that iterating `knowing whether' operators of different agents has a remarkable property that iterations of `knowing that' do not have. When we generate a sequence of events, starting with a given event and then applying `knowing that' or `not knowing that' to the previous event, then the events in this sequence may be, somewhat surprisingly, contradictory. In contrast, any sequence of this type, generated with `knowing whether' and `not knowing whether' is never contradictory. We use this property of the `knowing whether' operator to construct a simple and natural state space and information structures for two agents, such that: (1) any two states are distinct relative to some interactive knowledge of a fixed event, (2) the space has the cardinality of the continuum. This result --- originally proved in a complicated manner by Aumann (1989) --- demonstrates the usefulness of the `knowing whether'
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Hart, Sergiu & Heifetz, Aviad & Samet, Dov, 1996. ""Knowing Whether," "Knowing That," and The Cardinality of State Spaces," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 249-256, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jetheo:v:70:y:1996:i:1:p:249-256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022-0531(96)90084-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert J. Aumann, 1999. "Interactive epistemology I: Knowledge," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(3), pages 263-300.
    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. Simon Grant & John Quiggin, 2005. "Learning and Discovery," Risk & Uncertainty Working Papers WP7R05, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
    2. Heifetz, Aviad & Samet, Dov, 1998. "Knowledge Spaces with Arbitrarily High Rank," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 260-273, February.
    3. Konrad Grabiszewski, 2015. "Epistemic Self-Analysis and Epistemic Bounded Rationality," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(3), pages 1941-1948.
    4. , & ,, 2011. "Agreeing to agree," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(2), May.
    5. Fukuda, Satoshi, 2021. "Unawareness without AU Introspection," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Moscati Ivan, 2009. "Interactive and common knowledge in the state-space model," CESMEP Working Papers 200903, University of Turin.
    7. Heifetz, Aviad & Meier, Martin & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2006. "Interactive unawareness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 130(1), pages 78-94, September.
    8. Koessler, Frederic, 2003. "Persuasion games with higher-order uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 110(2), pages 393-399, June.
    9. Satoshi Fukuda, 2018. "Representing Unawareness on State Spaces," Working Papers 635, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    10. Feinberg, Yossi, 2000. "Characterizing Common Priors in the Form of Posteriors," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 91(2), pages 127-179, April.
    11. Gossner, Olivier & Tsakas, Elias, 2007. "Testing Rationality on Primitive Knowledge," Working Papers in Economics 275, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

    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. John Geanakoplos, 1993. "Common Knowledge," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1062, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    2. Katarina Kostelić, 2021. "Game Awareness: A Questionnaire," Games, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-39, December.
    3. , & ,, 2011. "Agreeing to agree," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(2), May.
    4. 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.
    5. Billot, Antoine & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2018. "Expected utility without parsimony," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 14-21.
    6. 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.
    7. Giacomo Bonanno & Cédric Dégremont, 2013. "Logic and Game Theory," Working Papers 24, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    8. Holler Manfred J., 2002. "Classical, Modern, and New Game Theory / Klassische, Moderne und Neue Spieltheorie," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 222(5), pages 556-583, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Heifetz, Aviad & Meier, Martin & Schipper, Burkhard C., 2008. "A canonical model for interactive unawareness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 304-324, January.
    11. Timothy Mathews & Aniruddha Bagchi, 2019. "Conflict without an Apparent Cause," Games, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-12, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Giovanna Devetag & Hykel Hosni & Giacomo Sillari, 2012. "You Better Play 7: Mutual versus Common Knowledge of Advice in a Weak-link Experiment," CEEL Working Papers 1201, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    14. Liu, Qi & Chow, Joseph Y.J., 2022. "Efficient and stable data-sharing in a public transit oligopoly as a coopetitive game," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 64-87.
    15. Lawrence C. Y. Choo, 2014. "Trading Participation Rights to the “Red Hat Puzzle”. An Experiment," Discussion Papers 1408, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    16. Dekel, Eddie & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2015. "Epistemic Game Theory," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    17. John Geanakoplos & (**), Moshe Y. Vardi & Joseph Y. Halpern & Ronald Fagin, 1999. "The hierarchical approach to modeling knowledge and common knowledge," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(3), pages 331-365.
    18. Choo, Lawrence C.Y, 2014. "Trading Participation Rights to the Red Hat Puzzle. Will Markets allocate the rights for performing decision tasks to the more abled players?," MPRA Paper 55569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Giacomo Bonanno & Elias Tsakas, 2017. "Qualitative analysis of common belief of rationality in strategic-form games," Working Papers 175, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    20. Gossner, O. & Tsakas, E., 2010. "A reasoning approach to introspection and unawareness," Research Memorandum 006, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • D8 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty

    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:eee:jetheo:v:70:y:1996:i:1:p:249-256. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622869 .

    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.