Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T00:48:33.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

OUTCOME LEVEL ANALYSIS OF BELIEF CONTRACTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2013

SVEN OVE HANSSON
SVEN OVE HANSSON*
Affiliation:
Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm
*
*TEKNIKRINGEN 78 100 44 STOCKHOLM SWEDEN E-mail: soh@kth.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The outcome set of a belief change operator is the set of outcomes that can be obtained with it. Axiomatic characterizations are reported for the outcome sets of the standard AGM contraction operators and eight types of base-generated contraction. These results throw new light on the properties of some of these operators.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 183 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchourrón, C., & Makinson, D., (1981). Hierarchies of regulation and their logic. In Hilpinen, R., editor. New Studies in Deontic Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchourrón, C. E. and Makinson, D. (1982). On the logic of theory of change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria, 48, 14–37.Google Scholar
Falappa, M. A., Fermé, E., & Kern-Isberner, G. (2006). On the logic of theory change: Relations between incision and selection functions. In Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., and Traverso, P., editors. EJAI 2006. 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 402–406.Google Scholar
Fermé, E., & Rodriguez, R. (1998). Semi-contraction: Axioms and construction. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 39, 332–345.Google Scholar
Fermé, E., Saez, K., & Sanz, P., (2003). Multiple kernel contraction. Studia Logica, 73, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1991). Belief contraction without recovery. Studia Logica, 50, 251–260.Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1993). Theory contraction and base contraction unified. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58, 602–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1994). Kernel contraction. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 59, 845–859.Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1999a). A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Theory Change and Database Updating. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1999b). A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Solutions to Exercises. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (2008). Specified meet contraction. Erkenntnis, 69, 31–54.Google Scholar
Levi, I. (1977). Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese, 34, 423–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. (1991). The Fixation of Belief and Its Undoing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rott, H. (1993). Belief contraction in the context of the general theory of rational choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58, 1426–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar