In an interactive belief model, are the players "commonly meta-certain" of the model itself? This paper formalizes such implicit "common meta-certainty" assumption. To that end, the paper expands the objects of players' beliefs from events to functions defined on the underlying states. Then, the paper defines a player's belief-generating map: it associates, with each state, whether a player believes each event at that state. The paper formalizes what it means by: "a player is (meta-)certain of her own belief-generating map" or "the players are (meta-)certain of the profile of belief-generating maps (i.e., the model)." The paper shows: a player is (meta-)certain of her own belief-generating map if and only if her beliefs are introspective. The players are commonly (meta-)certain of the model if and only if, for any event which some player i believes at some state, it is common belief at the state that player i believes the event. This paper then asks whether the "common meta-certainty" assumption is needed for an epistemic characterization of game-theoretic solution concepts. The paper shows: if each player is logical and (meta-)certain of her own strategy and belief-generating map, then each player correctly believes her own rationality. Consequently, common belief in rationality alone leads to actions that survive iterated elimination of strictly dominated actions. |