Perception in update logic
| Abstract | Three key ways of updating one’s knowledge are (i) perception of states of affairs, (ii) reception of messages, (iii) drawing new conclusions from known facts. If one represents knowledge by means of Kripke models, the implicit assumption is that drawing conclusions is immediate. This assumption of logical omniscience is a useful abstraction. It leaves the distinction between (i) and (ii) to be accounted for. In current versions of Update Logic (Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Logic of Communication and Change) perception and message reception are not distinguished. We will look at what is needed to distinguish them. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Only published papers are available at libraries |
Similar books and articlesJohan van Benthem (2003). Conditional Probability Meets Update Logic. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 12 (4):409-421.
Jan Van Eijck & Fer-Jan De Vries (1995). Reasoning About Update Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 24 (1):19 - 45.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads2 ( #232,382 of 549,065 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,185 of 549,065 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
