ABSTRACT In his paper ?On Having Bad Contractions, Or: No Room for Recovery? [Te97], N. Tennant attacks the AGM research program of belief revision. We show that he misrepresents the state of affairs in this field of research.

In this paper we explore a class of belief update operators, in which the definition of the operator is compositional with respect to the sentence to be added. The goal is to provide an update operator that is intuitive, in that its definition is based on a recursive decomposition of the update sentence’s structure, and that may be reasonably implemented. In addressing update, we first provide a definition phrased in terms of the models of a knowledge base. While this operator (...) satisfies a core group of the benchmark Katsuno Mendelzon update postulates, not all of the postulates are satisfied. Other Katsuno Mendelzon postulates can be obtained by suitably restricting the syntactic form of the sentence for update, as we show. In restricting the syntactic form of the sentence for update, we also obtain a hierarchy of update operators with Winslett’s standard semantics as the most basic interesting approach captured. We subsequently give an algorithm which captures this approach; in the general case the algorithm is exponential, but with some not unreasonable assumptions we obtain an algorithm that is linear in the size of the knowledge base. Hence the resulting approach has much better complexity characteristics than other operators in some situations. We also explore other compositional belief change operators: erasure is developed as a dual operator to update; we show that a forget operator is definable in terms of update; and we give a definition of the compositional revision operator. We obtain that compositional revision, under the most natural definition, yields the Satoh revision operator. (shrink)

In his paper ‘Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Reply to My Critics’, N. Tennant (1997b) reacts to the critical reception of an earlier article of his. The present note rectifies some of the most serious misrepresentations in Tennant's reply.

‘Changing the Theory of Theory Change: Towards a Computational Approach’ (Tennant [1994]; henceforth CTTC) claimed that the AGM postulate of recovery is false, and that AGM contractions of theories can be more than minimally mutilating. It also described an alternative, computational method for contracting theories, called the Staining Algorithm. Makinson [1995] and Hansson and Rott [1995] criticized CTTC's arguments against AGM-theory, and its specific proposals for an alternative, computational approach. This paper replies as comprehensively as space allows.