Limits in the Revision Theory:More Than Just Definite Verdicts

Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-25 (forthcoming)
Authors
Catrin Campbell-Moore
Bristol University
Abstract
We present a new proposal for what to do at limits in the revision theory. The usual criterion for a limit stage is that it should agree with any definite verdicts that have been brought about before that stage. We suggest that one should not only consider definite verdicts that have been brought about but also more general properties; in fact any closed property can be considered. This more general framework is required if we move to considering revision theories for concepts that are concerned with real numbers, but also has consequences for more traditional revision theories such as the revision theory of truth.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10992-018-9477-y
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 35,865
External links

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.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The AGM Theory for Belief Revision.Li-wen Xiong - 2005 - Modern Philosophy 1 (3):127-131.
The AGM Theory for Belief Revision.Xong Liwen - 2005 - Modern Philosophy 1 (3):018.
Vagueness and Revision Sequences.C. M. Asmus - 2013 - Synthese 190 (6):953-974.
On the Degeneracy of the Full AGM-Theory of Theory-Revision.Neil Tennant - 2006 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 71 (2):661 - 676.
A Paraconsistent Theory of Belief Revision.Edwin D. Mares - 2002 - Erkenntnis 56 (2):229 - 246.
Revision Revisited.Leon Horsten, Graham E. Leigh, Hannes Leitgeb & Philip Welch - 2012 - Review of Symbolic Logic 5 (4):642-664.
Boolean Paradoxes and Revision Periods.Ming Hsiung - 2017 - Studia Logica 105 (5):881-914.
Cofinally Invariant Sequences and Revision.Edoardo Rivello - 2015 - Studia Logica 103 (3):599-622.
Still Counterintuitive: A Reply to Kremer.Roy T. Cook - 2003 - Analysis 63 (3):257–261.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-02-16

Total downloads
15 ( #394,795 of 2,293,801 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #410,358 of 2,293,801 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature