  The early literature on epistemic logic in philosophy focused on reasoning
about the knowledge or belief of a single agent, especially on controversies
about "introspection axioms" such as the 4 and 5 axioms. By contrast, the later
literature on epistemic logic in computer science and game theory has focused
on multi-agent epistemic reasoning, with the single-agent 4 and 5 axioms
largely taken for granted. In the relevant multi-agent scenarios, it is often
important to reason about what agent A believes about what agent B believes
about what agent A believes; but it is rarely important to reason just about
what agent A believes about what agent A believes. This raises the question of
the extent to which single-agent introspection axioms actually matter for
multi-agent epistemic reasoning. In this paper, we formalize and answer this
question. To formalize the question, we first define a set of multi-agent
formulas that we call agent-alternating formulas, including formulas like Box_a
Box_b Box_a p but not formulas like Box_a Box_a p. We then prove, for the case
of belief, that if one starts with multi-agent K or KD, then adding both the 4
and 5 axioms (or adding the B axiom) does not allow the derivation of any new
agent-alternating formulas -- in this sense, introspection axioms do not
matter. By contrast, we show that such conservativity results fail for
knowledge and multi-agent KT, though they hold with respect to a smaller class
of agent-nonrepeating formulas.
