Abstract
Generalisations of theory change involving arbitrary sets of wffs instead of belief sets have become known as base change. In one view, a base should be thought of as providing more structure to its generated belief set, and can be used to determine the theory change operation associated with a base change operation. In this paper we extend a proposal along these lines by Meyer et al. We take an infobase as a finite sequence of wffs, with each element in the sequence being seen as an independently obtained bit of information, and define appropriate infobase change operations. The associated theory change operations satisfy the AGM postulates for theory change. Since an infobase change operation produces a new infobase, it allows for iterated infobase change. We measure iterated infobase change against the postulates proposed by Darwiche et al. and Lehmann.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
AlchourrÓon, C. E., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson, ‘On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 50:510–530, 1985.
Boutilier, C., ‘Unifying default reasoning and belief revision in a modal framework’, Artificial Intelligence 68:33–85, 1994.
dalal, M., ‘Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision’, in Proceedings of the 7th National Conference of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence, Saint Paul, Minnesota, pages 475–479, 1988.
Darwiche, A., and J. Pearl, ‘On the logic of iterated belief revision’, in R. Fagin, editor, Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, pages 5–23, Pacific Grove, CA, 1994, Morgan Kaufmann.
Darwiche, A., and J. Pearl, ‘On the logic of iterated belief revision’, Artificial Intelligence 89:1–29, 1997.
Doyle, J., ‘Reason maintenance and belief revision: Foundations versus coherence theories’, in P. Gärdenfors, editor, Belief Revision, volume 29 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 29–51, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
Fuhrmann, A., ‘Theory contraction through base contraction’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 20:175–203, 1991.
Gärdenfors, P., Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1988.
Grove, A., ‘Two modellings for theory change’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 17:157–170, 1988.
Hansson, S.O., ‘New operators for theory change’, Theoria 55:114–132, 1989.
Hansson, S.O., ‘In defense of base contraction’, Synthese 91:239–245, 1992.
Hansson, S.O., ‘Knowledge-level analysis of belief base operations’, Artificial Intelligence 82:215–235, 1996.
Katsuno, H., and A. O. Mendelzon, ‘Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change’, Artificial Intelligence 52:263–294, 1991.
Lehmann, D., ‘Another perspective on Default Reasoning’, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 1995.
Meyer, T. A., W. A. Labuschagne, and J. Heidema, ‘Infobase change: A first approximation’, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9(3):353–377, 2000.
Nayak, A. C., ‘Foundational belief change’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 23:495–533, 1994.
Nebel, B., ‘A knowledge level analysis of belief revision’, in R. J. Brachman, H. J. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 301–311, San Mateo, CA, 1989, Morgan Kaufmann.
Nebel, B., Reasoning and Revision in Hybrid Representation Systems, volume 422 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
Nebel, B., ‘Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax-based approaches’, in J. Allen, R. Fikes, and E. Sandewall, editors, Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Second International Conference KR '91, pages 417–428, Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, California, 1991.
Nebel, B., ‘Syntax-based approaches to belief revision’, in P. Gärdenfors, editor, Belief Revision, volume 29 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, pages 52–88, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992.
Peppas, P., and M.-A. Williams, ‘Constructive modellings for theory change’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 36(1):120–133, 1995.
Rott, H., ‘Modellings for belief change: Prioritization and entrenchment’, Theoria 58(1):21–57, 1992.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meyer, T. Basic Infobase Change. Studia Logica 67, 215–242 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010547120504
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010547120504