Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

In contrast to other prominent models of belief change, models based on epistemic entrenchment have up to now been applicable only in the context of very strong packages of requirements for belief revision. This paper decomposes the axiomatization of entrenchment into independent modules. Among other things it is shown how belief revision satisfying only the ‘basic’ postulates of Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson can be represented in terms of entrenchment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. AlchourrÓn, C., P. GÄrdenfors, and D. Makinson, ‘On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction Functions and Their Associated Revision Functions’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 50:510–30, 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. AlchourrÓn, C. and D. Makinson, ‘On the Logic of Theory Change: Safe Contraction’, Studia Logica 44:405–22, 1985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. AlchourrÓn, C. and D. Makinson, ‘Maps Between Some Different Kinds of Contraction Function: The Finite Case’, Studia Logica 45:187–98, 1986.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Boutilier, C., ‘Iterated Revision and Minimal Change of Conditional Beliefs’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 25:263–305, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cantwell, J., ‘Two Notions of Epistemic Entrenchment’, in M.-A. Williams and H. Rott (eds), Frontiers of Belief Revision, pp. 221–45, Kluwer, 2001.

  6. Chernoff, H., ‘Rational Selection of Decision Functions’, Econometrica 22:423–43, 1954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Darwiche, A., and J. Pearl, ‘On the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision’, Artificial Intelligence 89:1–29, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. GÄrdenfors, P., Knowledge in Flux. Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Bradford Books, MIT Press, 1988.

  9. GÄrdenfors, P. and D. Makinson, ‘Revisions of Knowledge Systems Using Epistemic Entrenchment’, in M. Vardi (ed.), TARK'88 — Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge, pp. 83–95, Morgan Kaufmann, 1988.

  10. Goodman, N., Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Bobbs-Merrill, 3rd edition, 1973 (first edition 1955).

  11. Grove, A., ‘Two Modellings for Theory Change’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 17:157–70, 1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hansson, S. O., ‘Kernel Contraction’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 59:845–59, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hansson, S. O., A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Theory Change and Database Updating, Kluwer, 1999.

  14. Herzberger, H. G., ‘Ordinal Preference and Rational Choice’, Econometrica 41:187–237, 1973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jackson, F., ‘Assertion and Conditionals’, Philosophical Review 88:565–89, 1979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Katsuno, H. and A. O. Mendelzon, ‘On the Difference between Updating a Knowledge Base and Revising it’, in P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Belief Revision, pp. 183–203, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

  17. Klee, R., ‘Problems with Formal Models of Epistemic Entrenchment as Applied to Scientific Theories’, Synthese 122:313–20, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Levi, I., For the Sake of Argument, Cambridge University Press, 1996.

  19. LindstrÖm, S. and W. Rabinowicz, ‘Epistemic Entrenchment with Incomparabilities and Relational Belief Revision’, in A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau (eds), The Logic of Theory Change, pp. 93–126, Springer LNAI 465, 1991.

  20. Makinson, D. and P. GÄrdenfors, ‘Relations Between the Logic of Theory Change and Nonmonotonic Logic’, in A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau (eds), The Logic of Theory Change, pp. 185–205, Springer LNAI 465, 1991.

  21. Nayak, A., ‘Acceptance Without Minimality’, in M. Ojeda-Aciego et al. (eds), Logics in Artificial Intelligence. European Workshop, JELIA 2000, pp. 163–78, Springer LNAI 1919, 2000.

  22. Pagnucco, M., The Role of Abductive Reasoning Within the Process of Belief Revision, PhD thesis, Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney, February 1996.

  23. Rabinowicz, W., ‘Stable Revision, or Is Preservation Worth Preserving?’, in A. Fuhrmann and H. Rott (eds), Logic, Action and Information: Essays on Logic in Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence, pp. 101–28, de Gruyter, 1995.

  24. Rott, H., ‘A Non-monotonic Conditional Logic for Belief Revision I’, in A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau (eds), The Logic of Theory Change, pp. 135–81, Springer LNAI 465, 1991.

  25. Rott, H., ‘Preferential Belief Change Using Generalized Epistemic Entrenchment’, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1:45–78, 1992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rott, H., ‘Belief Contraction in the Context of the General Theory of Rational Choice’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 58:1426–50, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rott, H., ‘Coherence and Conservatism in the Dynamics of Belief. Part I: Finding the Right Framework’, Erkenntnis 50:387–412, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rott, H., ‘“Just Because”: Taking Belief Bases Seriously’, in S. R. Buss, P. Hájek and P. Pudlák (eds), Logic Colloquium '98 — Proceedings of the Annual European Summer Meeting of the Association for Symbolic Logic held in Prague, Lecture Notes in Logic, Vol. 13, pp. 387–408, Association for Symbolic Logic, 2000.

  29. Rott, H., ‘Two Dogmas of Belief Revision’, Journal of Philosophy 97:503–22, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rott, H., Change, Choice and Inference, Oxford University Press, 2001.

  31. Sen, A. K., ‘Maximization and the Act of Choice’, Econometrica 65:745–79, 1997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Williams, M.-A., ‘On the Logic of Theory Base Change’, in C. MacNish, D. Pearce and L. M. Pereira (eds), Logics in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 86–105, Springer LNAI 838, 1994.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rott, H. Basic Entrenchment. Studia Logica 73, 257–280 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022988014704

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022988014704

Navigation