Abstract
In this book we provided a comprehensive set of methodologies to tackle the problem of belief revision. The methodologies determine acceptability criteria for the result of the revision operation based on the context in which the operation takes place. In what follows, we summarise the main points raised in the book and we end with some discussions in Section 9.2.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
H. Andreka, M. D. Ryan, and P.-Y. Schobbens. Operators and laws for combining preference relations. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12:13–53, 2002.
C. Areces, P. Blackburn, and M. Marx. Repairing the interpolation theorem in quantified modal logic. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 124, 2003. DOI:10.1016/S0168-0072(03)00059-9.
K. Arrow.Social choice and individual values. Cowles Foundation Monograph Series, second edition, 1963.
W. Carnielli, J. Rasga, and C. Sernadas. Preservation of interpolation features by fibring. Journal of Logic and Computation, 18(1):123–151, 2008. 10.1093/logcom/exm061.
D. M. Gabbay. Fibring Logics, volume 38 of Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford Univesity Press, 1998.
D. M. Gabbay and L. Maksimova. Interpolation and Definability. Modal and Intuitionistic Logics., volume 1. Oxford Science Publications, 2005. ISBN 0-19-851174-4.
D. M. Gabbay, G. Pigozzi, and O. Rodrigues. Belief revision, belief merging and voting. In G. Bonanno, W. van der Hoek, and M. Wooldridge, editors, Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Logic and the Foundations of Games and Decision Theory (LOFT06), pages 71–78. University of Liverpool, 2006.
S. Konieczny, J. Lang, and P. Marquis. Da2 merging operators. Artificial Intelligence, 157:49–79, 2004.
S. Konieczny and R. Pino-Pérez. Proceedings of KR’98, chapter On the logic of merging, pages 488–498. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998.
S. Konieczny and R. Pino-Pérez. Merging information under constraints: a logical framework. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12(5):773–808, 2002.
S. Konieczny and R. Pino-Pérez. Propositional belief base merging or how to merge beliefs/goals coming from several sources and some links with social choice theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 160(3):785–802, 2005.
D. Makinson and P. Gärdenfors. Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic. In Fuhrmann A. and M. Morreau, editors, The Logic of Theory Change, Workshop, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Volume 465, Konstanz, FRG, October 1989. Springer Verlag.
F. Rossi, M. S. Pini, K. B. Venable, and T. Walsh. Aggregating preferences cannot be fair. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge. ACM Digital Library, June 2005.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gabbay, D.M., Rodrigues, O.T., Russo, A. (2010). Conclusions and Discussions. In: Revision, Acceptability and Context. Cognitive Technologies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14159-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-14159-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-14158-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-14159-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)