Tableaux for expansion and contraction
The classical AGM account (Alchourrón, Gärdenfors and Makinson ) of belief revision is an account of the process of changing sets of beliefs by either adding beliefs consistent with a belief set (expansion), or giving up beliefs (contraction). The AGM account is built on the notion of classically consistent theories which are closed under deductive consequence and include all the theorems of their base logic. We present an account of belief sets and belief change in terms of model-sets (Hintikka ) and tableaux with flagged formulas. The account is four valued rather than two valued, and uses the values true, not true, false and not false. These are “believed” values. The account allows for paraconsistency. We draw on the semi-classical logics around RM (Dunn ). The use of flagged formulas allows for a more subtle approach to both expansion and contraction.
Keywordsbelief revision paraconsistency tableaux
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Alchourrón, C.E., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson. 1985. “On the logic of Theory Change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision.” Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530Google Scholar
- Dunn, J.M. 1976. “A Kripke-Style Semantics for R-Mingle Using a Binary Accessibility Relation”, Studia Logica, 35, 163–172.Google Scholar
- Gärdenfors, P. 1988. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
- Girle, R.A. 1982 “Semantic Tableau for Logics around RM”, Australian Logic Teachers' Journal, 6(3), 1–20.Google Scholar
- Girle, R.A. 1989a “Logic Programming with Semi-classical Model-set Semantics”, Ninth International Workshop Expert Systems and their Applications, General Conference, Volume 1, Avignon, May 29–June 2, 101–114.Google Scholar
- Girle, R.A. 1989b. “Computational Models for Knowledge”, Proceedings of the Australian Joint Artificial Intelligence Conference, Melbourne, Vic, Nov. 14–17, 104–119Google Scholar
- Girle, R.A. 1992. “Inconsistent Belief and Logic” in Advances in Artificial Intelligence Research, Vol 2, Eds. Fishman, M.B. and J.L. Robards, JAI Press, London, 23–36.Google Scholar
- Girle, R.A. 1995. “Tolerating Contradiction in Knowledge Representation”, Proceedings of the Eighth Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Symposium, Melbourne, Florida, April 27–29, 1–5.Google Scholar
- Hintikka, J.K. 1969. Models for Modalities, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Hocutt, M.O. 1972. “Is Epistemic Logic possible?”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 13 (4), 433–453Google Scholar
- Jaspars, Jan. O. M. 1995. “Partial Up and Down Logic”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 36 (1), 134–157Google Scholar
- van Bentham, J. 1988. A Manual of Intensional Logic 2nd Ed. Revised and Expanded, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar