Abstract
This paper is concerned with the construction of a base contraction (revision) operation such that the theory contraction (revision) operation generated by it will be fully AGM-rational. It is shown that the theory contraction operation generated by Fuhrmann'sminimal base contraction operation, even under quite strong restrictions, fails to satisfy the “supplementary postulates” of belief contraction. Finally Fuhrmann's construction is appropriately modified so as to yield the desired properties. The new construction may be described as involving a modification of safe (base) contraction so as to make it maxichoice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
C. E. Alchourrón, P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson, “On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions”,Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol.50, pp. 510–530, 1985.
C. E. Alchourrón and D. Makinson, “The logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions”,Theoria, vol.48, pp. 14–37, 1982.
C. E. Alchourrón and D. Makinson, “On the logic of theory change: safe contraction”,Studia Logica, vol.44, pp. 405–422, 1985.
André Fuhrmann,Relevant Logics, Modal Logics and Theory Change, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Philosophy and Automated Reasoning Project, Australian National University, 1988.
André Fuhrmann, “Theory Contraction through Base Revision”,Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol.20, pp. 175–203, 1991.
Peter Gärdenfors,Knowledge in Flux. Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states, Bradford/MIT, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 1988.
Peter Gärdenfors, “The Dynamics of Belief Systems: Foundations vs. Coherence Theories”,Revue Internationale de Philosophie, Vol.44, pp. 24–46, 1990.
Gilbert Harman,Change in View: Principles of Reasoning, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1986.
Sven Ove Hansson, “New Operators for Theory Change”,Theoria, vol.55, pp. 114–136, 1989.
Sven Ove Hansson, “Reversing the Levi Identity”, forthcoming,Journal of Philosophical Logic.
Sven Ove Hansson, “Belief Contraction Without Recovery”,Studia Logica, vol. 50, pp. 250–260, 1991.
Sven Ove Hansson, “A Dydadic Representation of Belief”, in Peter Gärdenfors ed.Belief Revision, CUP, pp. 89–121, 1992.
Sven Ove Hansson, “In Defence of Base Contraction”,Synthese, vol.91, pp. 239–245, 1992.
Isaac Levi,Fixation of Belief and its Undoing, Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Sten Lindström, “A Semantic Approach to Nonmonotonic Reasoning: Inference Operations and Choice”, manuscript, 1991.
David Makinson, “How to give it up: a survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change”,Synthese, vol.62, pp. 347–363, 1985.
David Makinson, “On the Status of the Postulate of Recovery in the Logic of Theory Change”,Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol.16, pp. 383–394, 1987.
Bernhard Nebel, “A Knowledge Level Analysis of Belief Revision”, in H. J. Levesque and R. Reiter, editors,Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 301–311, Morgan Kaufmann, CA, 1989.
Bernhard Nebel,Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems, volume422 ofLecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag, 1990.
Bernhard Nebel, “Belief Revision and Default Reasoning: Syntax Based Approaches”, in J. A. Allen, F. Fikes and E. Sandewall (eds),Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, CA; pp. 417–428, 1991. A revised and extended version of this paper can be found in Peter Gärdenfors ed.Belief Revision, CUP, pp. 52–88, 1992.
R. Niedrée, “Multiple Contraction. A further case against Gärdenfors' principle of recovery”, in A. Fuhrmann and M. Mourreau, eds.The Logic of Theory Change, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 465, Springer Verlag, pp. 322–334, 1991.
John L. Pollock, “How to Reason Defeasibly”, the Oscar Project Technical Report, Sept. 1991.
Amartya Sen, “Social Choice Theory: A Re-examination”,Econometrica, vol.45, pp. 53–89, 1977.
D. S. Touretzky, J. F. Horty and R. H. Thomason, “A Clash of Intuitions: The Current State of Nonmonotonic Multiple Inheritance Systems”,International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1987, pp. 476–82; John McDermott ed.