Graduate studies at Western
Review of Symbolic Logic 3 (2):228-246 (2010)
|Abstract||The success of the AGM paradigmn, Gis remarkable, as even a quick look at the literature it has generated will testify. But it is also remarkable, at least in hindsight, how limited was the original effort. For example, the theory concerns the beliefs of just one agent; all incoming information is accepted; belief change is uniquely determined by the new information; there is no provision for nested beliefs. And perhaps most surprising: there is no analysis of iterated change|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John Cantwell (1999). Some Logics of Iterated Belief Change. Studia Logica 63 (1):49-84.
Giacomo Bonanno (2008). Belief Revision in a Temporal Framework. In Krzysztof Apt & Robert van Rooij (eds.), New Perspectives on Games and Interaction. Amsterdam University Press.
Laura Giordano, Valentina Gliozzi & Nicola Olivetti (2002). Iterated Belief Revision and Conditional Logic. Studia Logica 70 (1):23-47.
Hans P. Van Ditmarsch (2005). Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese 147 (2):229 - 275.
Hans P. Van Ditmarsch (2005). Prolegomena to Dynamic Logic for Belief Revision. Synthese 147 (2):229-275.
Krister Segerberg (1998). Irrevocable Belief Revision in Dynamic Doxastic Logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 39 (3):287-306.
Krister Segerberg (1999). Default Logic as Dynamic Doxastic Logic. Erkenntnis 50 (2-3):333-352.
Nina Gierasimczuk (2009). Bridging Learning Theory and Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Synthese 169 (2):371-384.
Added to index2010-06-04
Total downloads52 ( #23,838 of 740,432 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,802 of 740,432 )
How can I increase my downloads?