Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mnl9s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T03:23:52.836Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

HOW CAN QUESTIONS BE INFORMATIVE BEFORE THEY ARE ANSWERED? STRATEGIC INFORMATION IN INTERROGATIVE GAMES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 July 2012

Emmanuel J. Genot  and
Justine Jacot
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examine a special case of inquiry games and give an account of the informational import of asking questions. We focus on yes-or-no questions, which always carry information about the questioner's strategy, but never about the state of Nature, and show how strategic information reduces uncertainty through inferences about other players' goals and strategies. This uncertainty cannot always be captured by information structures of classical game theory. We conclude by discussing the connection with Gricean pragmatics and contextual constraints on interpretation.

Information

Type
Epistemic Logic and its Broader Applications
Information
Episteme , Volume 9 , Special Issue 2: Formal Social Epistemology, in memory of Horacio Arló-Costa , June 2012 , pp. 189 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Artemov, Sergei. 2009. ‘Knowledge-Based Rational Decisions.’ Technical Report TR-2009012, CUNY PhD Program in Computer Science.Google Scholar
Aumann, Robert. 1999. ‘Interactive Epistemology I: Knowledge.’ International Journal of Game Theory, 28: 263–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binmore, Ken, and Shin, Hyun Song. 1992. ‘Algorithmic Knowledge and Game Theory.’ In Bicchieri, Cristina and Chiara, Maria Luisa Della (eds), Knowledge, Belief and Strategic Interaction, Cambridge Studies in Probability, Induction, and Decision Theory, pp. 141–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conan Doyle, Arthur. 1960. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Enqvist, Sebastian. 2009. ‘Interrogative Belief Revision in Modal Logic.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38: 527–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groenendijk, Jeroen, and Stokhof, Martin. 1997. ‘Questions.’ In Van Benthem, Johan and ter Meulen, Alice (eds), Handbook of Logic and Language, pp. 1057–1122. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Halpern, Joseph Y., and Chaves Rego, Leandro. 2006. ‘Extensive Games with Possibly Unaware Players.’ In AAMAS '06: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 744–51. Hakodate, Japan: AAMAS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamblin, Charles Leonard. 1958. ‘Questions.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 36: 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, John C. 1977. Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, Jaaklo, Halonen, Ilpo, and Mutanen, Arto. 1999. ‘Interrogative Logic as a General Theory of Reasoning.’ In Inquiry as Inquiry, pp. 47–90. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kelly, Kevin, and Mayo-Wilson, Conor. 2010. ‘Ockham Efficiency Theorem for Stochastic Empirical Methods.’ Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39: 679–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsson, Erik J. 2005. Against Coherence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Martin J., and Rubinstein, Ariel. 1994. A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Parikh, Prashant. 1991. ‘Communication and Strategic Inference.’ Linguistics and Philosophy, 14: 473–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parikh, Rohit, Taşdcmir, Çağil, and Witzel, Andreas. 2011. ‘The Power of Knowledge in Games.’ Presented at the 2011 Episteme Conference, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, June.Google Scholar
van Ditmarsch, Hans P., van der Hoek, Wiebe, and Kooi, Barteld P. 2007. Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar