Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 693
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Schmidt, Fabian Gebhardt, Jörg and Kruse, Rudolf 2017. Soft Methods for Data Science.

    Baltag, Alexandru and Smets, Sonja 2016. Readings in Formal Epistemology.

    Baltag, Alexandru Gierasimczuk, Nina and Smets, Sonja 2016. On the Solvability of Inductive Problems: A Study in Epistemic Topology. Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 215, p. 81.

    Booth, Richard and Chandler, Jake 2016. The Irreducibility of Iterated to Single Revision. Journal of Philosophical Logic,

    Bou Farah, Mira Mercier, David Delmotte, François and Lefèvre, Éric 2016. Methods using belief functions to manage imperfect information concerning events on the road in VANETs. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 67, p. 299.

    Caridroit, Thomas Konieczny, Sébastien and Marquis, Pierre 2016. Contraction in propositional logic. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning,

    Comi, Antonello Fotia, Lidia Messina, Fabrizio Rosaci, Domenico and Sarné, Giuseppe M.L. 2016. A partnership-based approach to improve QoS on federated computing infrastructures. Information Sciences, Vol. 367-368, p. 246.

    Creignou, Nadia Papini, Odile Rümmele, Stefan and Woltran, Stefan 2016. Belief Merging within Fragments of Propositional Logic. ACM Transactions on Computational Logic, Vol. 17, Issue. 3, p. 1.

    de Araújo, Anderson Beraldo 2016. Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence.

    Dubois, Didier Liu, Weiru Ma, Jianbing and Prade, Henri 2016. The basic principles of uncertain information fusion. An organised review of merging rules in different representation frameworks. Information Fusion, Vol. 32, p. 12.

    Dunin-Kęplicz, Barbara and Strachocka, Alina 2016. Paraconsistent argumentation schemes1. Web Intelligence, Vol. 14, Issue. 1, p. 43.

    Dupin de Saint-Cyr, Florence Bisquert, Pierre Cayrol, Claudette and Lagasquie-Schiex, Marie-Christine 2016. Argumentation update in YALLA (Yet Another Logic Language for Argumentation). International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 75, p. 57.

    Eiter, Thomas Fink, Michael and Stepanova, Daria 2016. Data repair of inconsistent nonmonotonic description logic programs. Artificial Intelligence,

    Fu, Xuefeng Qi, Guilin Zhang, Yong and Zhou, Zhangquan 2016. Graph-based approaches to debugging and revision of terminologies in DL-Lite. Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 100, p. 1.

    Girle, Roderic A. 2016. Proof and Dialogue in Aristotle. Argumentation, Vol. 30, Issue. 3, p. 289.

    Grim, Patrick Modell, Andrew Breslin, Nicholas Mcnenny, Jasmine Mondescu, Irina Finnegan, Kyle Olsen, Robert An, Chanyu and Fedder, Alexander 2016. COHERENCE AND CORRESPONDENCE IN THE NETWORK DYNAMICS OF BELIEF SUITES. Episteme, p. 1.

    Haas, Gordian 2016. A Brief Remark on Non-prioritized Belief Change and the Monotony Postulate. Acta Analytica,

    Hansson, Sven Ove 2016. Readings in Formal Epistemology.

    Hansson, Sven Ove 2016. The co-occurrence test for non-monotonic inference. Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 234, p. 190.

    Hansson, Sven Ove 2016. Iterated Descriptor Revision and the Logic of Ramsey Test Conditionals. Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 45, Issue. 4, p. 429.


On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions

  • Carlos E. Alchourrón (a1), Peter Gärdenfors (a2) and David Makinson (a3)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 March 2014

This paper extends earlier work by its authors on formal aspects of the processes of contracting a theory to eliminate a proposition and revising a theory to introduce a proposition. In the course of the earlier work, Gärdenfors developed general postulates of a more or less equational nature for such processes, whilst Alchourrón and Makinson studied the particular case of contraction functions that are maximal, in the sense of yielding a maximal subset of the theory (or alternatively, of one of its axiomatic bases), that fails to imply the proposition being eliminated.

In the present paper, the authors study a broader class, including contraction functions that may be less than maximal. Specifically, they investigate “partial meet contraction functions”, which are defined to yield the intersection of some nonempty family of maximal subsets of the theory that fail to imply the proposition being eliminated. Basic properties of these functions are established: it is shown in particular that they satisfy the Gärdenfors postulates, and moreover that they are sufficiently general to provide a representation theorem for those postulates. Some special classes of partial meet contraction functions, notably those that are “relational” and “transitively relational”, are studied in detail, and their connections with certain “supplementary postulates” of Gàrdenfors investigated, with a further representation theorem established.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

[2]Carlos E. Alchourron and David Makinson , On the logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions, Theoria, vol. 48 (1982), pp. 1437.

[5]Peter Gärdenfors , Epistemic importance and minimal changes of belief, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 62 (1984), pp. 136157.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Journal of Symbolic Logic
  • ISSN: 0022-4812
  • EISSN: 1943-5886
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-symbolic-logic
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *