Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T06:16:24.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Credibility limited revision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Sven Ove Hansson ,
Eduardo Leopoldo Fermé ,
John Cantwell  and
Marcelo Alejandro Falappa
Sven Ove Hansson
Affiliation:
Philosophy Unit, Royal Institute Of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden, E-Mail: soh@infra.kth.se
Eduardo Leopoldo Fermé
Affiliation:
Departamento De Computación, Facultad De Ciencias Exactas y Naturales Universidad de Buenos Aires Pab I Ciudad Universitaria (1428), Buenos Aires, Argentina, E-mail: ferme@dc.uba.ar
John Cantwell
Affiliation:
Philosophy Unit, Royal Institute of Technology, 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden, E-Mail: jcantwell@infra.kth.se
Marcelo Alejandro Falappa
Affiliation:
Departamento De Ciencias De La Computación, Universidad Nacional Del SurAv. Alem 1253 (8000), Bahía Blanca, Argentina, E-Mail: mfalappa@cs.uns.edu.ar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract.

Five types of constructions are introduced for non-prioritized belief revision, i.e., belief revision in which the input sentence is not always accepted. These constructions include generalizations of entrenchment-based and sphere-based revision. Axiomatic characterizations are provided, and close interconnections are shown to hold between the different constructions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 66 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 1581 - 1596
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2001

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.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Alchourrón, Carlos, Gàrdenfors, Peter, and Makinson, David, On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions, this Journal, vol. 50 (1985), pp. 510–530.Google Scholar
[2]Cantwell, John. Some logics of iterated belief change. Studia Logica, vol. 63 (1999), pp. 49–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Fermé, Eduardo Leopoldo and Hansson, Sven Ove, Selective revision. Studia Logica, vol. 63 (1999). pp. 331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Fuhrmann, André, An essay on contraction, Studies in Logic, Language and Information, CSLI Publications, Stanford, 1997.Google Scholar
[5]Gàrdenfors, Peter, Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988.Google Scholar
[6]Gàrdenfors, Peter and Makinson, David, Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. Second conference on theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge. 83-95, 1988., 1988, pp. 83–95.Google Scholar
[7]Gàrdenfors, Peter and Rott, Hans, Belief revision, Gabbay, Hogger and Robinson (eds.), Handbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming, Oxford University Press, Oxford, (1995), pp. 35–92.Google Scholar
[8]Grove, Adam, Two modellings for theory change, Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 17 (1988), pp. 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[9]Hansson, Sven Ove, Belief hase dynamics, Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, Department of Philosophy, Uppsala, Sweden, 1991.Google Scholar
[10]Hansson, Sven Ove, A test battery for rational database updating. Artificial Intelligence, vol. 82 (1996), pp. 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Hansson, Sven Ove, Semi-revision, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic, vol. 7 (1997), pp. 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Hansson, Sven Ove, A textbook of belief dynamics, Kluwer, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Katsuno, Hirofumi and Mendelzon, Alberto, On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it, P. Gàrdenfors (ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1992), pp. 183–203.Google Scholar
[14]Lindstrom, Sten and Rabinowicz, Wlodzimierz, Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision, A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau (ed.), The Logic of Theory Change, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, (1991), pp. 93–126.Google Scholar
[15]Makinson, David, Screened revision, Theoria, vol. 63 (1997), pp. 14–23.Google Scholar
[16]Olsson, Erik J., Coherence, Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, Department of Philosophy, Uppsala. Sweden, 1997.Google Scholar
[17]Olsson, Erik J., A coherence interpretation of semi-revision, Theoria, vol. 63 (1997), pp. 105–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Rott, Hans, A nonmonotonic conditional logic for belief revision; part 1: semantics and logic of simple conditionals, A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau (ed.), The Logic of Theory Change, Springer- Verlag, Berlin, (1991), pp. 135–181.Google Scholar
[19]Wassermann, Renata and Hansson, Sven Ove, Local change, 1998, Manuscript.Google Scholar