Abstract
We present a theory that copes with the dynamics of inconsistent information. A method is set forth to represent possibly inconsistent information by a finite state. Next, finite operations for expansion and contraction of finite states are given. No extra-logical element — a choice function or an ordering over (sets of) sentences — is presupposed in the definition of contraction. Moreover, expansion and contraction are each other's duals. AGM-style characterizations of these operations follow.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ALCHOURRÒN, C. E., P. GÄRDENFORS, and D. MAKINSON, ‘On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions’, Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510-530, 1985.
ANDERSON, A. R., and N. D. BELNAP, ‘Tautological entailments’, Philosophical Studies 13: 9-24, 1962.
ANDERSON, A. R., and N. D. BELNAP, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Volume 1, Princeton University Press, 1975.
ANDERSON, A. R., N. D. BELNAP, and J. M. DUNN, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Volume 2, Princeton University Press, 1992.
CHOPRA, S., and R. PARIKH, ‘Relevance sensitive belief structures’, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 28: 259-285, 2000.
DA COSTA, N. C. A., and O. BUENO, ‘Belief change and inconsistency’, Logique & Analyse 161–163: 31-56, 1998.
DUNN, J. M., ‘Intuitive semantics for first-degree entailments and “coupled trees”’, Philosophical Studies 29: 149-168, 1976.
FUHRMANN, A., ‘Theory contraction through base contraction’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 20: 175-203, 1991.
GÄRDENFORS, P., Knowledge in Flux, The MIT Press, 1988.
HANSSON, S. O., ‘Reversing the Levi identity’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 22: 637-669, 1993.
HANSSON, S. O., ‘Editorial: belief revision theory today’, Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7: 123-126, 1998.
HANSSON, S. O., and E. J. OLSSON, ‘Levi contractions and AGM contractions: a comparison’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 36: 103-119, 1995.
MAKINSON, D., ‘On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change’, Journal of Philosophical Logic 16: 383-394, 1987.
MARES, E. D., ‘A paraconsistent theory of belief revision’, Erkenntnis 56: 229-246, 2002.
PAIS, J., and P. JACKSON, ‘Partial monotonicity and a new version of the Ramsey test’, Studia Logica 51: 21-47, 1992.
RESCHER, N., and R. BRANDOM, The Logic of Inconsistency, Blackwell, 1980.
RESTALL, G., and J. SLANEY, ‘Realistic belief revision’, Technical Report TR-ARP-2-95, Research School of Information Sciences and Engineering and Centre for Information Science Research, Australian National University, 1995.
ROUTLEY, R., and V. ROUTLEY, ‘The semantics of first degree entailment’ Noûs 6: 335-359, 1972.
TAMMINGA, A. M., Belief Dynamics: (Epistemo)logical Investigations, Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2001.
TAMMINGA, A. M., and K. TANAKA, ‘A natural deduction system for first degree entailment’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 40: 258-272, 1999.
WASSERMANN, R., Resource-Bounded Belief Revision, Ph.D. thesis, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2000.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tamminga, A. Expansion and Contraction of Finite States. Studia Logica 76, 427–442 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:STUD.0000032106.55407.c8
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:STUD.0000032106.55407.c8