Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Believability relations for select-direct sentential revision
Philosophy and History, KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8743-2858
2017 (English)In: Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, ISSN 0039-3215, E-ISSN 1572-8730, Vol. 105, no 1, p. 37-63Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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 <= on sentences named believability relation. Intuitively,phi <= psi means that the subject is at least as prone to believe or accept phi as to believe or accept . 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2017. Vol. 105, no 1, p. 37-63
Keywords [en]
Sentential revision, Belief change, Select-direct, Descriptor revision, Believability relation, AGM revision, Epistemic entrenchment relation
National Category
Philosophy, Ethics and Religion
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-204110DOI: 10.1007/s11225-016-9681-0ISI: 000394273900003Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84983731467OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-204110DiVA, id: diva2:1085197
Note

QC 20170328

Available from: 2017-03-28 Created: 2017-03-28 Last updated: 2018-05-22Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. On Non-Prioritized Multiple Belief Revision
Open this publication in new window or tab >>On Non-Prioritized Multiple Belief Revision
2018 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

This thesis investigates a sort of non-prioritized multiple revision, the operation of making up one's mind, and its generalization, the operation of choice revision. Making up one's mind about a sentence is a belief change that takes the agent to a belief state in which either the sentence or its negation is believed. In choice revision, the input information is represented by a set of sentences, and the agent should make a choice on which sentences to be accepted. Apart from being practically important, these operations are technically interesting since the standard approach of intersecting a set of optimal outcomes is not workable.

Paper I provides a construction based on descriptor revision in which the operation of making up one's mind can be modelled in a ``select-direct'' way, which is different from the traditional ``select-and-intersect'' methodology employed in the AGM model. The article shows that this construction is axiomatically characterized with a set of plausible postulates, and investigates the additional postulates that correlate with properties of the construction.

Paper II investigates a new modelling for sentential belief revision operations, which is based on a set of relations on sentences named believability relations. It demonstrates that two special kinds of such relations, i.e. H-believability relations and basic believability relations, are faithful alternative models of two typical sentential revision generated from descriptor revision. It also shows that traditional AGM revision operations can be reconstructed from a strengthened variant of the basic believability relation and there exists a close connection between this strengthened believability relation and the standard epistemic entrenchment relation.

Paper III studies the constructions of choice revision based on descriptor revision and multiple believability relations, which extends the domain of believability relations from sentences to sets of sentences. It is shown that each of two variants of choice revision based on descriptor revision is axiomatically characterized with a set of plausible postulates, assuming that the object language is finite. Furthermore, without assuming a finite language, it is shown that choice revision constructed from multiple believability relations is axiomatically characterized with the same sets of postulates proposed for choice revision derived from descriptor revision, whenever these relations satisfy certain rationality conditions.

Paper IV explores choice revision on belief bases. A generalized version of expansion operation called partial expansion is introduced for developing models of this kind of choice revision. Based on the partial expansion as well as two multiple contraction operations from the literature, two kinds of choice revision operators on belief bases are constructed. This paper proposes several postulates for such two operators and shows that they can be axiomatically characterized by such postulates. Furthermore, it investigates two kinds of making up one's mind operators generated from these two choice revision operators and presents the axiomatic characterizations of them.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2018. p. 41
Series
TRITA-ABE-DLT ; 1810Theses in philosophy from the Royal Institute of Technology, ISSN 1650-8831 ; 60
Keywords
Non-prioritized multiple revision, Making up one's mind, Choice revision, Descriptor revision, AGM, Believability relation, Multiple believability relation, Belief base, Partial expansion, Multiple contraction
National Category
Philosophy Mathematics Computer Sciences
Research subject
Philosophy; Mathematics; Computer Science
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-227171 (URN)978-91-7729-756-7 (ISBN)
Public defence
2018-05-28, Kollegiesalen, Brinellvägen 8, Stockholm, 13:00 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Note

QC 20180504

Available from: 2018-05-04 Created: 2018-05-03 Last updated: 2018-05-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Zhang, Li

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Zhang, Li
By organisation
Philosophy
In the same journal
Studia Logica: An International Journal for Symbolic Logic
Philosophy, Ethics and Religion

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 17 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf