Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generalized Change and the Meaning of Rationality Postulates

  • Published:
Studia Logica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The standard theory of belief revision was developed to describe how a rational agent should change his beliefs in the presence of new information. Many interesting tools were created, but the concept of rationality was usually assumed to be related to classical logics.

In this paper, we explore the fact that the logical tools used can be extended to other sorts of logics, as proved in (Hansson and Wassermann, 2002), to describe models that are closer to the rationality of a real agent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AlchourrÓn, C., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • AlchourrÓn, C. and D. Makinson, ‘On The Logic of Theory Change: contraction functions and their associated revision functions’, Theoria, 48:14–37, 1982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, A. and N. Belnap, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Vol. 1. Princeton University Press, 1975.

  • Benferhat, S., D. Dubois, and H. Prade'How to infer from inconsistent beliefs without revising?’, in: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1995.

  • Cadoli, M. and M. Schaerf, ‘Approximate inference in default logic and circumscription’, Fundamenta Informaticae, 23:123–143, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadoli, M. and M. Schaerf, ‘The Complexity of Entailment in Propositional Multivalued Logics’, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 18(1): 29–50, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra, S., R. Parikh, and R. Wassermann, ‘Approximate Belief Revision’, Logic Journal of the IGPL 9(6):755–768, 2001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coniglio, M. E. and W. A. Carnielli, ‘Transfers between Logics and their Applications’, Technical Report Vol. 1(4), CLE e-Prints-UNICAMP, 2001. Available at http://www.cle.unicamp.br/e-prints/.

  • Da Costa, N. C., ‘Calculs Propositionnels pour les Systémes Formels Inconsistants’, Comptes Rendus d'Academie des Sciences de Paris 257, 1963.

  • Da Costa, N. C. A. and E. H. Alves, ‘A semantical analysis of the calculi Cn’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 16, 1977

  • Finger, M. and R. Wassermann, ‘Approximate Reasoning and Paraconsistency — Preliminary Report’, in: Proceedings of the Eigth Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Comunication (WoLLIC), Brasília, Brazil, 2001a.

  • Finger, M. and R. Wassermann, ‘Tableaux for Approximate Reasoning’, in: Proceedings of the IJCAI-01 Workshop on Inconsistency in Data and Knowledge, 2001b.

  • Fuhrmann, A., ‘Theory Contraction Through Base Contraction’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 20:175–203, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O., ‘New Operators for Theory Change’, Theoria 55:114–132, 1989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O., ‘Belief Base Dynamics’, Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University, 1991.

  • Hansson, S. O., ‘A dyadic representation of belief’, in: P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Belief Revision, Vol. 29 of Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, pp. 89–121, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

  • Hansson, S. O., ‘Kernel Contraction'. Journal of Symbolic Logic 59:845–859, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O., A Textbook of Belief Dynamics, Kluwer, 1999.

  • Hansson, S. O. and R. Wassermann, ‘Local Change’, Studia Logica 70:49–76, 2002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzig, A., ‘How to change factual beliefs using laws and independence information'. in: D. M. Gabbay, R. Kruse, A. Nonnengart, and H. J. Ohlbach (eds.): Qualitative and Quantitative Practical Reasoning — First Int. Joint Conf. on Qual. and Quant. Practical Reasoning; ECSQARU-FAPR'97. pp. 311–321, Springer,: 1997

  • Levesque, H., ‘A logic of implicit and explicit belief’, in: Proceedings of AAAI-84, 1984.

  • Marquis, P. and N. Porquet, ‘Resource-bounded inference from inconsistent belief bases’, in: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 103–108, Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.

  • Nebel, B., ‘Syntax Based Approaches to Belief Revision’, in: P. Gärdenfors (ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, 1992.

  • Restall, G. and J. Slaney, ‘Realistic Belief Revision’, in: Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Foundations of Artificial Intelligence (WOCFAI), pp. 367–378, 1995.

  • Schaerf, M. and M. Cadoli, ‘Tractable Reasoning via Approximation’, Artificial Intelligence 74(2):249–310, 1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wassermann, R., ‘On Structured Belief Bases’, in: H. Rott and M.-A. Williams (eds.), Frontiers in Belief Revision, Kluwer, 2001.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Institute of Mathematics and Statistics, University of São Paulo, Brazil

    Renata Wassermann

Authors
  1. Renata Wassermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wassermann, R. Generalized Change and the Meaning of Rationality Postulates. Studia Logica 73, 299–319 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022992115613

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022992115613

Keywords

Search

Navigation