Global and Iterated Contraction and Revision: An Exploration of Uniform and Semi-Uniform Approaches

In order to clarify the problems of iterated (global) belief change it is useful to study simple cases, in particular consecutive contractions by sentences that are both logically and epistemically independent. Models in which the selection mechanism is kept constant are much more plausible in this case than what they are in general. One such model, namely uniform specified meet contraction, has the advantage of being closely connected with the AGM model. Its properties seem fairly adequate for the intended type of contraction. However, the revision operator based on it via the Levi identity collapses into an implausible operation that loses all old information when revising by new information. A weaker version, semi-uniform specified meet contraction, avoids the collapse but has the disadvantage of a remarkably weak logic. It is left as an open issue whether there is an intermediate class of contraction operators that yields a more satisfactory logic.

[1]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States , 2008 .

[2]  Wolfgang Spohn,et al.  The measurement of ranks and the laws of iterated contraction , 2008, Artif. Intell..

[3]  Thomas Andreas Meyer,et al.  Iterated Belief Change and the Recovery Axiom , 2008, J. Philos. Log..

[4]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in Flux , 1988 .

[5]  Mehmet A. Orgun,et al.  Taking Levi Identity Seriously: A Plea for Iterated Belief Contraction , 2006, KSEM.

[6]  Allard M. Tamminga,et al.  Expansion and Contraction of Finite States , 2004, Stud Logica.

[7]  Risto Hilpinen,et al.  New Studies in Deontic Logic , 1981 .

[8]  Mehmet A. Orgun,et al.  Iterated Belief Contraction from First Principles , 2007, IJCAI.

[9]  Norman Y. Foo,et al.  Distance Semantics for Relevance-Sensitive Belief Revision , 2004, KR.

[10]  Hans Rott,et al.  Change, choice and inference - a study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning , 2001, Oxford logic guides.

[11]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A textbook of belief dynamics - theory change and database updating , 1999, Applied logic series.

[12]  R. Parikh.  Beliefs, belief revision, and splitting languages , 1999 .

[13]  Carlos E. Alchourrón,et al.  Hierarchies of Regulations and their Logic , 1981 .

[14]  Hans Rott,et al.  Change, choice and inference , 2001 .

[15]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Specified Meet Contraction , 2008 .

[16]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  A Textbook Of Belief Dynamics , 1999 .

[17]  J. Pearl,et al.  On the Logic of Iterated Belief Revision , 1994, Artif. Intell..

[18]  David Makinson,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions , 2008 .

[19]  Peter Gärdenfors,et al.  On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions , 1985, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[20]  P G rdenfors,et al.  Knowledge in flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states , 1988 .

[21]  SVEN OVE HANSSON,et al.  Reversing the Levi identity , 1993, J. Philos. Log..

[22]  Pavlos Peppas,et al.  Conflicts between Relevance-Sensitive and Iterated Belief Revision , 2008, ECAI.

[23]  S. Hansson.  In defense of base contraction , 1992, Synthese.

[24]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Logic, Language and Computation , 1997 .

[25]  Sven Ove Hansson,et al.  Theory contraction and base contraction unified , 1993, Journal of Symbolic Logic.

[26]  Sven Ove Hansson.  Kernel Contraction , 1994, J. Symb. Log..

[27]  Sven Ove Hansson.  Contraction Based on Sentential Selection , 2007, J. Log. Comput..