Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T16:12:45.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the degeneracy of the full AGM-theory of theory-revision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Neil Tennant
Neil Tennant*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A general method is provided whereby bizarre revisions of consistent theories with respect to contingent sentences that they refute can be delivered by revision-functions satisfying both the basic and the supplementary postulates of the AGM-theory of theory-revision.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 661 - 676
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2006

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

REFERENCES

Alchourrón, Carlos, Gärdenfors, Peter, and Makinson, David [1985]. On the logic of theory change: partial meet contractions and revision functions, this Journal, vol. 50, pp. 510–530.Google Scholar
Alchourrón, Carlos and Makinson, David [1982], On the logic of theory change: contraction functions and their associated revision functions, Theoria, vol. 48. pp. 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter [1982]. Epistemic importance and minimal changes of belief, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 62, pp. 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter [1988], Knowledge in flux, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Makinson, David [1987], On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, vol. 16, pp. 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osherson, Daniel [2005], Note on an observation by Neil Tennant. Unpublished typescript, http://www.princeton.edu/~osherson/papers/tennant11.pdf.Google Scholar
Parikh, Rohit [1999], Belief revision and language splitting. Logic, language and computation (Moss, L., Ginzburg, J., and de Rijke, M., editors). CSLI Lecture Notes, Stanford, pp. 266–278.Google Scholar
Ryan, Mark D. [1996], Belief revision and ordered theory presentations, Logic, action, information: Essays on logic in philosophy and artificial intelligence (Fuhrmann, André and Rott, Hans, editors), Walter de Gruyter, Berlin and New York, pp. 129–151.Google Scholar
Tennant, Neil [2005], Contracting intuitionistic theories, Studia Logica. vol. 80. pp. 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennant, Neil [to appear]. New foundations for a relational theory of theory-revision. Journal of Philosophical Logic.Google Scholar