Some logics of iterated belief change

Studia Logica

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 49-84

  Cantwell, John ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0013329623     PISSN: 00393215     EISSN: 15728730     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1005219504371     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. ALCHOURRÖN, C., P. GÄRDENFORS and D. MAKINSON (1985), 'On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision', Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510-530.
2. BOUTILIER, C. (1993), 'Revision sequences and nested conditionals', Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (I. J.C.A.I), pages 513-526.
3. DARWICHE, A., and J. PEARL (1997), 'On the logic of iterated belief revision', Artificial Intelligence, pages 1-29.
4. DB RIJKE, M. (1994), 'Meeting some neighbours: A dynamic mdoal logic meets theories of change and knowledge representation', in J. van Eijk and A. Visser (eds.), Logic and Information Flow, pages 170-196, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
5. GÄRDENFORS, P. (1986), 'Belief revision and the ramsey test for conditionals', The Philosophical Review 95, 81-93.
6. GROVE, A. (1988), 'Two modellings for theory change', Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, 157-170.
7. HANSSON, S.-O. (1993), 'Changes on disjunctively closed bases', Journal of Logic, Language and Information, pages 255-284.
8. HANSSON, S.-O. (1994), 'Taking belief bases seriously', in D. Prawitz and D. Westerstahl (eds), Logic and Philosophy of Science in Uppsala, pages 13-28, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
9. JEFFREY, R. (1965), The Logic of Decision, Macgraw-Hill, New York.
10. LEHMANN, D. (1995), 'Belief revision, revised', Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (I. J.C.A.I), pages 1534-1540.
11. LEVI, I. (1991), Fixation of Belief and Its Undoing, Cambridge.
12. LEWIS, D. (1973), Counterfactuals, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
13. LINDSTRÖM, S., and W. RABINOWICZ (1991), 'Epistemic entrechement with incomparabilities and relational belief revision', in A. Fuhrmann (ed.), The Logic of Theory Change, pages 93-126, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
14. MAKINSON, D. (1987), 'On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change', Journal of Philosophical Logic 16, 383-394.
15. NAYAK, A. C. (1994), 'Iterated belief change based on epistemic entrenchment', Erkenntnis 41, 353-390.
16. ROTT, H. (1991), 'Two methods of constructing contractions and revisions of knowledge systems', Journal of Philosophical Logic 20, 149-173.
17. ROTT, H. (1994), 'Drawing inferences from conditionals', Report 38, Zentrum Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie, Universität Konstanz.
18. ROTT, H. (1995), 'Just because: Taking belief bases very seriously', in S.-O. Hansson W. Rabinowicz (eds.), Logic for a Change, pages 106-124, Uppsala Prints and Preprints in Philosophy, Uppsala.
19. SEGERBERG, K, (1995a), 'Belief revision form the point of view of doxastic logic', Bulletin of the IGPL 3, 535-553.
20. SEGBRBERG, K. (1995b), 'Some questions about hypertheories', in S.-O. Hansson and W. Rabinowicz (eds.), Logic for a Change, Uppsala Prints and Preprints in Philosophy, Uppsala.
21. SEGERBERG, K. (1997), 'Proposal for a theory of belief reviosion along the lines of Lindström and Rabinowicz' (in press).
22. SPOHN, W. (1988), 'Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states', in W. L. Harper and B. Skyrras (eds.), Causation in Decision, Belief Change and Statistics, pages 105-134, Kluwer Academic Publishers.