Two Methods of Constructing Contractions and Revisions of Knowledge Systems

作者: Hans Rott

DOI: 10.1007/BF00284973

关键词:

摘要: The theory of nonmonotonic reasoning and the belief revision share a very important subject. Both theories help to understand how it is possible rationally pass from one knowledge system into another that in contradiction with former one. In this transition accomplished by distinguishing between axioms ("explicit beliefs") theorems ("implicit giving up doctrine more must always yield theorems. Thus my old (implicit) Tweety can fly may well turn disbelief after getting information (acquiring explicit belief) penguin. A considerable limitation approach new axiom be (monotonica!ly) consistent previous axioms, or else we get an inconsistent base. on which I shall focus attention not subject restriction. fact, does at all distinguish theorems, beliefs their reasons. systems takes consideration are whole theories, where theory, set, understood as set sentences closed under some appropriate logic Cn. We assume includes classical propositional logic, compact (i.e., if

参考文章(9)
Peter Gärdenfors, Epistemic Importance and the Logic of Theory Change Foundations of Logic and Linguistics. pp. 345- 367 ,(1985) , 10.1007/978-1-4899-0548-2_16
Peter Gärdenfors, David Makinson, Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment theoretical aspects of rationality and knowledge. pp. 83- 95 ,(1988)
Adam Grove, Two modellings for theory change Journal of Philosophical Logic. ,vol. 17, pp. 157- 170 ,(1988) , 10.1007/BF00247909
David Makinson, On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change Journal of Philosophical Logic. ,vol. 16, pp. 383- 394 ,(1987) , 10.1007/BF00431184
Wolfgang SPOHN, A general non-probabilistic theory of inductive reasoning uncertainty in artificial intelligence. ,vol. 9, pp. 149- 158 ,(1990) , 10.1016/B978-0-444-88650-7.50017-2
Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors, David Makinson, On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions Journal of Symbolic Logic. ,vol. 50, pp. 510- 530 ,(1985) , 10.2307/2274239