Skip to main content

Shifting Priorities: Simple Representations for Twenty-Seven Iterated Theory Change Operators

  • Chapter
Book cover Towards Mathematical Philosophy

Part of the book series: Trends in Logic ((TREN,volume 28))

Abstract

Prioritized bases, i.e., weakly ordered sets of sentences, have been used for specifying an agent’s ‘basic’ or ‘explicit’ beliefs, or alternatively for compactly encoding an agent’s belief state without the claim that the elements of a base are in any sense basic. This paper focuses on the second interpretation and shows how a shifting of priorities in prioritized bases can be used for a simple, constructive and intuitive way of representing a large variety of methods for the change of belief states—methods that have usually been characterized semantically by a system-of-spheres modeling. Among the methods represented are ‘radical’, ‘conservative’ and ‘moderate’ revision, ‘revision by comparison’ in its raising and lowering variants, as well as various constructions for belief expansion and contraction. Importantly, none of these methods makes any use of numbers.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alchourrón, Carlos, Gärdenfors, Peter, Makinson, David (1985), ‘On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction functions and their associated revision functions’, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50: 510–530,

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Areces, Carlos, Becher, Veronica (2001), ‘Iterable AGM functions’, in Williams, Rott (eds.), pp. 261–277.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Benferhat, Salem, Dubois, Didier, Prade, Henri (2001), ‘A computational model for belief change and fusing ordered belief bases’, in Williams, Rott (eds.), pp. 109–134.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Booth, Richard, Meyer, Thomas (2006), ‘Admissible and restrained revision’, Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 26: 127–151.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Boutilier, Craig, (1993), ‘Revision sequences and nested conditionals’, in Bajcsy, R. (ed.), IJCAI-93—Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 519–525.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boutilier, Craig (1996), ‘Iterated revision and minimal change of conditional beliefs’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25: 263–305.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Cantwell, John (1997), ‘On the logic of small changes in hypertheories’, Theoria, 63: 54–89.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Darwiche, Adnan, Pearl, Judea (1997), ‘On the logic of iterated belief revision’, Artificial intelligence, 89: 1–29.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Dubois, Didier, Lang, Jérôme, Prade, Henri, ‘Possibilistic logic’, in: Gabbay, D.M., Hogger, C.J., Robinson, J.A. (eds.), Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming, vol. 3, Nonmonotonic Reasoning and Uncertain Reasoning, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1994, pp. 439–513.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fermé, Eduardo (2000), ‘Irrevocable belief revision and epistemic entrenchment’, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 8: 645–652.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Fermé, Eduardo, Rodriguez, Ricardo (1998), ‘A brief note about Rott contraction’, Logic Journal of the IGPL, 6: 835–842.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Fermé, Eduardo, Rott, Hans (2004), ‘Revision by comparison’, Artificial Intelligence, 157: 5–47.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Gärdenfors, Peter, Makinson, David (1988), ‘Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment’, in Vardi, M. (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, CA, 1988, pp. 83–95.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grove, Adam (1988), ‘Two modellings for theory change’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17: 157–170.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Hansson, Sven O. (1999), A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Theory Change and Database Updating, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Levi, Isaac (2004), Mild Contraction: Evaluating Loss of Information due to Loss of Belief, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lewis, David (1973), Counterfactuals, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Meyer, Thomas, Ghose, Aditya, Chopra, Samir (2001), ‘Syntactic representations of semantic merging operations’, in Proceedings of the IJCAI-2001 Workshop on Inconsistency in Data and Knowledge, Seattle, USA, August 2001, pp. 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nayak, Abhaya C. (1994), ‘Iterated belief change based on epistemic entrenchment’, Erkenntnis, 41: 353–390.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Nayak, Abhaya C., Pagnucco, Maurice, Peppas, Pavlos (2003), ‘Dynamic belief revision operators’, Artificial Intelligence, 146: 193–228.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Nayak, Abhaya, Goebel, Randy, Orgun, Mehmet (2007), ‘Iterated belief contraction from first principles’, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI’07), pp. 2568–2573.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nebel, Bernhard (1992), ‘Syntax-based approaches to belief revision’, in: Gärdenfors, Peter (ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 52–88.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pagnucco, Maurice, Rott, Hans (1999), ‘Severe withdrawal—and recovery’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 28: 501–547. (Full corrected reprint in the JPL issue of February 2000.)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Papini, Odile (2001), ‘Iterated revision operations stemming from the history of an agent’s observations’, in Williams, Rott (eds.), pp. 279–301.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Peirce, Charles S. (1903), ‘The nature of meaning’, Harvard Lecture delivered on 7 May 1903, published in The Essential Peirce, vol. 2 (1803–1913), ed. by the Peirce Edition Project, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1998, pp. 208–225.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rescher, Nicholas (1964), Hypothetical Reasoning, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rott, Hans (1991a), ‘Two methods of constructing contractions and revisions of knowledge systems’, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20: 149–173.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  28. Rott, Hans (1991b), ‘A non-monotonic conditional logic for belief revision I’, in Fuhrmann, A., Morreau, M., The Logic of Theory Change, LNCS vol. 465, Springer, Berlin, pp. 135–181.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Rott, Hans (1992), ‘Modellings for belief change: Prioritization and entrenchment’, Theoria, 58: 21–57.

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  30. Rott, Hans (2000), ‘ “Just because”: Taking belief bases- seriously’, in Buss, Samuel R., Hájek, Petr, Pudlák, Pavel (eds.), Logic Colloquium ’98—Proceedings of the 1998 ASL European Summer Meeting, Lecture Notes in Logic, vol. 13, Urbana, Ill. Association for Symbolic Logic, pp. 387–408.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rott, Hans (2001), Change, Choice and Inference, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  32. Rott, Hans (2003), ‘Coherence and conservatism in the dynamics of belief. Part II: Iterated belief change without dispositional coherence’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13: 111–145.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  33. Rott, Hans (2004), ‘Stability, strength and sensitivity: converting belief into knowledge’, in Brendel, Elke, Jäger, Christoph (eds.), Contextualisms in Epistemology, special issue of Erkenntnis 61: 469–493.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rott, Hans (2006), ‘Revision by comparison as a unifying framework: Severe withdrawal, irrevocable revision and irrefutable revision’, Theoretical Computer Science, 355: 228–242.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. Rott, Hans (2007), ‘Bounded revision: Two-dimensional belief change between conservatism and moderation’, in Rønnow-Rasmussen, Toni et al. (eds.), Hommage à Wlodek. Philosophical Papers Dedicated to Wlodek Rabinowicz, internet publication, http://www.fil.lu.se/hommageawlodek/site/abstra.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Segerberg, Krister (1998), ‘Irrevocable belief revision in dynamic doxastic logic’, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 39: 287–306.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  37. Spohn, Wolfgang (1988), ‘Ordinal conditional functions’, in Harper, W.L., Skyrms, B. (eds.), Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, vol. II, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 105–134.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Stalnaker, Robert (1996), ‘Knowledge, belief, and counterfactual reasoning in games’, Economics and Philosophy, 12: 133–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Williams, Mary-Anne (1994), On the logic of theory base change’, in MacNish, C., Pearce, D., Pereira, L.M. (eds.), Logics in Artificial Intelligence, LNCS, vol. 838, Springer, Berlin, pp. 86–105.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Williams, Mary-Anne (1995), ‘Iterated theory base change: A computational model’, in IJCAI’95—Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, pp. 1541–1550.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Williams, Mary-Anne, Rott, Hans (eds.), (2001), Frontiers in Belief Revision, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans Rott .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Rott, H. (2009). Shifting Priorities: Simple Representations for Twenty-Seven Iterated Theory Change Operators. In: Makinson, D., Malinowski, J., Wansing, H. (eds) Towards Mathematical Philosophy. Trends in Logic, vol 28. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9084-4_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics