David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
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||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Johan 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.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #372,333 of 1,139,983 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #157,515 of 1,139,983 )
How can I increase my downloads?