Refined epistemic entrenchment

Journal of Logic, Language and Information

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 237-259

  Meyer, Thomas Andreas ^a   Labuschagne, Willem Adrian ^b   Heidema, Johannes ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA   (South Africa)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA   (South Africa)

Author keywords

Belief contraction; Belief revision; Epistemic entrenchment; Power orders; Theory change

Indexed keywords

EID: 1142282538     PISSN: 09258531     EISSN: 15729583     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1008316802976     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D., 1985, "On the logic of theory change: Partial meet functions for contraction and revision," Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510-530.
2. Boutilier, C., 1992, "Epistemic entrenchment in autoepistemic logic," Fundamenta Informaticae 17, 5-29.
3. Boutilier, C., 1994, "Unifying default reasoning and belief revision in a modal framework," Artificial Intelligence 68, 33-85.
4. Fermé, E., 1998, "On the logic of theory change: Contraction without recovery," Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 7(2), 127-137.
5. G̈ardenfors, P., 1988, Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
6. Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D., 1988, "Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment," pp. 83-95 in Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge, M. Vardi, ed., Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
7. Ginsberg, M.L., 1986, "Counterfactuals," Artificial Intelligence 30, 35-79.
8. Grove, A., 1988, "Two modellings for theory change," Journal of Philosophical Logic 17, 157-170.
9. Katsuno, H. and Mendelzon, A., 1991, "Knowledge base revision and minimal change," Artificial Intelligence 52, 263-294.
10. Lehmann, D. and Magidor, M., 1992, "What does a conditional knowledge base entail?," Artificial Intelligence 55, 1-60.
11. Lindström, S. and Rabinowicz, W., 1991, "Epistemic entrenchment with incomparabilities and relational belief revision," pp. 93-126 in Proceedings of the Workshop on The Logic of Theory-Change, Konstanz, FRG, October 1989, A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau, eds., Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 465, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
12. Makinson, D., 1987, "On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change," Journal of Philosophical Logic 16, 383-394.
13. Meyer, T.A., Labuschagne, W.A., and Heidema, J., 1998, "A semantic weakening of the recovery postulate for theory contraction," Technical Report, University of South Africa. Department of Mathematics Research, Report No. 258/98(4).
14. Rabinowicz, W., 1995, "Stable revision, or is preservation worth preserving," pp. 101-128 in Logic Action Information, A. Fuhrmann and H. Rott, eds., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
15. Rott, H., 1992, "Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment," Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 1, 45-78.
16. Rott, H. and Pagnucco, M., 1999, "Severe withdrawal (and recovery)," Journal of Philosophical Logic, to appear.