In this paper it is argued that, in order to solve the problem of iterated belief change, both the belief state and its input should be represented as epistemic entrenchment (EE) relations. A belief revision operation is constructed that updates a given EE relation to a new one in light of an evidential EE relation. It is shown that the operation in question satisfies generalized versions of the Gärdenfors revision postulates. The account offered is motivated by Spohn's ordinal conditionalization functions, and can be seen as the Jeffrization of a proposal considered by Rott.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Alchourrón, C. E., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson: 1985, ‘On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions’,Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530.
Alchourrón, C. E. and D. Makinson: 1985, ‘On the Logic of Theory Change: Safe Contractions’,Studia Logica 44, 405–422.
Alchourrón, C. E. and D. Makinson: 1986, ‘Maps Between Some Different Kinds of Contraction Function: The Finite Case’,Studia Logica 45, 187–198.
Gärdenfors, Peter: 1988,Knowledge in Flux. Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Bradford/MIT, Cambridge (Massachussetts).
Gärdenfors, Peter and David Makinson: 1988, ‘Revision of Knowledge Systems using Epistemic Entrenchment’, in M. Vardi (ed.),Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 83–95.
Gärdenfors, Peter and Hans Rott: ‘Belief Revision’, to be published inHandbook of Logic in AI and Logic Programming.
Ghosh, A., P. Hadjinian, A. Sattar, J. You and R. Goebel: ‘Iterated Belief Change’, Griffith University CIT Research Report no. 64.
Grove, Adam: 1988, ‘Two Modelings for Theory Change’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, 157–170.
Hansson, Sven Ove: 1989, ‘New Operators for Theory Change’,Theoria 55, 114–136.
Hansson, Sven Ove: 1991,Belief Base Dynamics, Uppsala.
Hansson, Sven Ove: 1992, ‘A Dyadic Representation of Belief’, in Peter Gärdenfors (ed.),Belief Revision, CUP, pp. 89–121.
Hansson, Sven Ove: ‘Changes in Preference’,Theory and Decision, (forthcoming).
Hansson, Sven Ove: 1993, ‘Reversing the Levi Identity’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 22, 637–669.
Hansson, Sven Ove: 1993, ‘Changes on Disjunctively Closed Bases’,Journal of Logic, Language and Information 2, 255–284.
Jeffrey, Richard C.: 1983,The Logic of Decision, 2nd ed, Chicago University Press.
Nayak, Abhaya C.: 1993,Studies in Belief Change, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York.
Nayak, Abhaya C., Paul Nelson, and Hanan Polansky: ‘Belief Change as Change in Epistemic Entrenchment’ (manuscript).
Niedrée, R.: 1991, ‘Multiple Contraction. A Further Case against Gärdenfors' Principle of Recovery’, in A. Fuhrmann and M. Mourreau (eds.),The Logic of Theory Change, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 465, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 322–334.
Ramsey, Frank P.: 1931, ‘General Propositions and Causality’, in hisFoundations of Mathematics and Other Logical Essays, Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 237–257.
Rott, Hans: 1989, ‘Conditionals and Theory Change: Revision, Expansions and Additions’,Synthese 81, 91–113.
Rott, Hans: 1991, ‘Two Methods of Constructing Contractions and Revisions of Knowledge Systems’,Journal of Philosophical Logic 20, 149–173.
Rott, Hans: 1991, ‘A Nonmonotonic Conditional Logic for Belief Revision I’, in A. Fuhrmann and M. Mourreau (eds.),The Logic of Theory Change, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 465, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 135–183.
Rott, Hans: 1992, ‘On the Logic of Theory Change: More Maps between Different kinds of Contraction Functions’, in Peter Gärdenfors (ed.),Belief Revision, CUP, Cambridge, pp. 122–141.
Rott, Hans: 1992, ‘Preferential Belief Change Using Generalized Epistemic Entrenchment’,Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1, 45–78.
Rott, Hans: ‘Modellings for Belief Change: Base Contraction, Multiple Contraction and Epistemic Entrenchment (Preliminary Report)’, in D. Pearce and G. Wagner (eds.),Logics in AI, European Workshop JELIA '92, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 633, Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 139–153.
Rott, Hans: ‘Modellings for Belief Change: Prioritization and Entrenchment’,Theoria, (in press).
Rott, Hans: ‘Coherent Choice and Epistemic Entrenchment’, (manuscript).
Schlechta, Karl: ‘Theory Revision and Probability’,Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 32, 307–319.
Spohn, Wolfgang: 1988, ‘Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States’, in W. L. Harper and B. Skyrms (eds.),Causation in Decision, Belief Change and Statistics, vol. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 105–134.
Stalnaker, Robert: 1981, ‘A Theory of Conditionals’, in W. L. Harper et al. (eds.),Ifs, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 41–55.
Williams, Mary-Anne: ‘Transmutations of Knowledge Systems’, in J. Doyle and E. Sandewall (eds.),Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR'94), 619–629.
I am indebted John G. Bennett and Henry E. Kyburg. jr. for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. I thank the referees forErkenntnis who, apart from giving extended comments and suggestions, provided me with some hard-to-find relevant material. I also thank Prashanta Bandyopadhyay, Norman Foo, Maurice Pagnucco, Hans Rott and Mary-Anne Williams for their suggestions. The errors that remain are, of course, mine.
About this article
Cite this article
Nayak, A.C. Iterated belief change based on epistemic entrenchment. Erkenntnis 41, 353–390 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01130759
- Revision Operation
- Belief Revision
- Belief State
- Belief Change
- Conditionalization Function