Abstract
A set of sentential revision operations can be generated in a select-direct way within a new framework for belief change named descriptor revision firstly introduced in Hansson [8]. In this paper, we adopt another constructive approach to these operations, based on a relation \({\preceq}\) on sentences named believability relation. Intuitively, \({\varphi \preceq \psi}\) means that the subject is at least as prone to believe or accept \({\varphi}\) as to believe or accept \({\psi}\). We demonstrate that so called H-believability relations and basic believability relations, the second of which the is axiomatically characterized with a set of weak postulates, are faithful alternative models for two typical select-direct sentential revision operations. Then we investigate additional postulates on believability relations that correlate with properties of the generated revision operations. Finally, we show that traditional AGM revision operations can be reconstructed from a strengthened variant of the basic believability relation and there is a close connection between this relation and the standard epistemic entrenchment relation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alchourrón C. E., Gärdenfors P., Makinson D.: On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)
Alchourrón C. E., Makinson D.: On the logic of theory change: contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria 48(1), 14–37 (1982)
Cantwell J.: On the logic of small changes in hypertheories. Theoria 63(1-2), 54–89 (1997)
Fermé E., Rott H.: Revision by comparison. Artificial Intelligence 157(1), 5–47 (2004)
Gärdenfors, P., and D. Makinson, Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment, in Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge, TARK ’88, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San Francisco, CA, 1988, pp. 83–95.
Grove A.: Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic 17(2), 157–170 (1988)
Hansson, S. O., Back to basics: belief revision through direct selection (submitted manuscript).
Hansson S. O.: Descriptor revision. Studia Logica 102(5), 955–980 (2013)
Hansson S. O.: Relations of epistemic proximity for belief change. Artificial Intelligence 217, 76–91 (2014)
Hansson S. O.: A monoselective presentation of AGM revision. Studia Logica 103(5), 1–15 (2015)
Jech, T. J., The Axiom of Choice. Dover Books on Mathematics Series. Dover Publications, 2008.
Kraus S., Lehmann D., Magidor M.: Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence 44(12), 167–207 (1990)
Makinson, D., and P. Gärdenfors, Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic, in A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau (eds.), The Logic of Theory Change, vol. 465 in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, Berlin, 1991, pp. 183–205.
Rott H.: Basic entrenchment. Studia Logica 73(2), 257–280 (2003)
Sandqvist T.: On why the best should always meet. Economics and Philosophy 16(02), 287–313 (2000)
Zhang L., Hansson S. O.: How to make up one’s mind. Logic Journal of IGPL 23(4), 705–717 (2015)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, L. Believability Relations for Select-Direct Sentential Revision. Stud Logica 105, 37–63 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-016-9681-0
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-016-9681-0