Theory Contraction and Base Contraction Unified

  • Sven Ove Hansson
Part of the Springer Graduate Texts in Philosophy book series (SGTP, volume 1)


One way to construct a contraction operator for a theory (belief set) is to assign to it a base (belief base) and an operator of partial meet contraction for that base. Axiomatic characterizations are given of the theory contractions that are generated in this way by (various types of) partial meet base contractions.



I would like to thank Peter Gärdenfors, Hans Rott, Wlodek Rabinowicz, and an anonymous referee for valuable comments on an earlier version.


  1. Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fuhrmann, A. (1991). Theory contraction through base contraction. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 20, 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gärdenfors, P. (1984). Epistemic importance and minimal changes of belief. Australasian Journal of Psychology, 62, 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux. Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1988). Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In M. Y. Vardi (Ed.), Proceedings of the second conference on theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge (pp. 83–95).Google Scholar
  6. Hansson, S. O. (1989). New operators for theory change. Theoria, 55, 114–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hansson, S. O. (1991). Belief contraction without recovery. Studia Logica., 50, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansson, S. O. (1992). In defense of base contraction. Synthese, 91, 239–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansson, S. O. (1993). Reversing the Levi identity. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 22, 637–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Makinson, D. (1987). On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16, 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nebel, B. (1992). Syntax-based approaches to belief revision. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief Revision (pp. 52–88). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Niederée, R. (1991). Multiple contraction. A further case against Gärdenfors’ principle of recovery. In A. Fuhrmann & M. Murreau (Eds.), The logic of theory change (Lecture notes in Artificial Intelligence 465, pp. 322–334). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day, Inc.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of PhilosophyKTHStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations