Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T11:42:01.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TWO LEVEL CREDIBILITY-LIMITED REVISIONS

Part of: General logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2020

MARCO GARAPA
MARCO GARAPA*
Affiliation:
FACULDADE DE CIÊNCIAS EXACTAS E DA ENGENHARIA UNIVERSIDADE DA MADEIRA CAMPUS UNIVERSITÁRIO DA PENTEADA 9020-105 FUNCHAL, PORTUGALE-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a new kind of nonprioritized operator which we call two level credibility-limited revision. When revising through a two level credibility-limited revision there are two levels of credibility and one of incredibility. When revising by a sentence at the highest level of credibility, the operator behaves as a standard revision, if the sentence is at the second level of credibility, then the outcome of the revision process coincides with a standard contraction by the negation of that sentence. If the sentence is not credible, then the original belief set remains unchanged. In this article, we axiomatically characterize several classes of two level credibility-limited revision operators.

Keywords

belief changenon-prioritized belief revisiontwo level credibility-limited revision functionsaxiomatic characterizations

MSC classification

Primary: 03B42: Logics of knowledge and belief (including belief change)
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2022 , pp. 388 - 408
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Association for Symbolic Logic

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
Booth, R., Fermé, E., Konieczny, S., & Pino Pérez, R. (2012). Credibility-limited revision operators in propositional logic. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, KR 2012, pp. 116–125.Google Scholar
Fermé, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2001). Shielded contraction. In Rott, H., & Williams, M.-A., editors. Frontiers in Belief Revision. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 85–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fermé, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2011). AGM 25 years: Twenty-five years of research in belief change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fermé, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2018). Belief Change: Introduction and Overview. Springer Briefs in Computer Science Series. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fermé, E., Mikalef, J., & Taboada, J. (2003). Credibility-limited functions for belief bases. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garapa, M., Fermé, E., & Reis, M. (2018a). Studies in credibility-limited base revision. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR 2018), pp. 240–247.Google Scholar
Garapa, M., Fermé, E., & Reis, M. D. (2018b). Shielded base contraction. Artificial Intelligence, 259, 186 – 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1978). Conditionals and changes of belief. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 30, 381–404.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1982). Rules for rational changes of belief. In Pauli, T., editor. Philosophical Essays dedicated to Lennart Aqvist on his fiftieth birthday, Vol. 34. New York: Springer, pp. 88–101.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1999). A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Theory Change and Database Updating Applied Logic Series. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (2017). Descriptor Revision. New York: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O., Fermé, E., Cantwell, J., & Falappa, M. (2001). Credibility-limited revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 66(4), 1581–1596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, W. L. (1976). Rational conceptual change. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1976, pp. 462–494.Google Scholar
Makinson, D. (1997). Screened revision. Theoria, 63, 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rott, H. (1992). Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 1, 45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar