Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Kernel contraction.Sven Ove Hansson - 1994 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 59 (3):845-859.
    Kernel contraction is a natural nonrelational generalization of safe contraction. All partial meet contractions are kernel contractions, but the converse relationship does not hold. Kernel contraction is axiomatically characterized. It is shown to be better suited than partial meet contraction for formal treatments of iterated belief change.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   51 citations  
  • Theory contraction through base contraction.André Fuhrmann - 1991 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 20 (2):175 - 203.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   93 citations  
  • (1 other version)On the logic of theory change: Safe contraction.Carlos E. Alchourrón & David Makinson - 1985 - Studia Logica 44 (4):405 - 422.
    This paper is concerned with formal aspects of the logic of theory change, and in particular with the process of shrinking or contracting a theory to eliminate a proposition. It continues work in the area by the authors and Peter Gärdenfors. The paper defines a notion of safe contraction of a set of propositions, shows that it satisfies the Gärdenfors postulates for contraction and thus can be represented as a partial meet contraction, and studies its properties both in general and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   106 citations  
  • (1 other version)On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions.Carlos E. Alchourrón, Peter Gärdenfors & David Makinson - 1985 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 (2):510-530.
    This paper extends earlier work by its authors on formal aspects of the processes of contracting a theory to eliminate a proposition and revising a theory to introduce a proposition. In the course of the earlier work, Gardenfors developed general postulates of a more or less equational nature for such processes, whilst Alchourron and Makinson studied the particular case of contraction functions that are maximal, in the sense of yielding a maximal subset of the theory (or alternatively, of one of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   745 citations  
  • Two modellings for theory change.Adam Grove - 1988 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 17 (2):157-170.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   311 citations  
  • Theory contraction and base contraction unified.Sven Ove Hansson - 1993 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 58 (2):602-625.
    One way to construct a contraction operator for a theory (belief set) is to assign to it a base (belief base) and an operator of partial meet contraction for that base. Axiomatic characterizations are given of the theory contractions that are generated in this way by (various types of) partial meet base contractions.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations  
  • (1 other version)How to give it up: A survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change.David Makinson - 1986 - Synthese 68 (1):185 - 186.
    The paper surveys some recent work on formal aspects of the logic of theory change. It begins with a general discussion of the intuitive processes of contraction and revision of a theory, and of differing strategies for their formal study. Specific work is then described, notably Gärdenfors' postulates for contraction and revision, maxichoice contraction and revision functions and the condition of orderliness, partial meet contraction and revision functions and the condition of relationality, and finally the operations of safe contraction and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   24 citations  
  • In defense of base contraction.Sven Ove Hansson - 1992 - Synthese 91 (3):239 - 245.
    In the most common approaches to belief dynamics, states of belief are represented by sets that are closed under logical consequence. In an alternative approach, they are represented by non-closed belief bases. This representation has attractive properties not shared by closed representations. Most importantly, it can account for repeated belief changes that have not yet been satisfactorily accounted for in the closed approach.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   29 citations  
  • A theory of diagnosis from first principles.Raymond Reiter - 1987 - Artificial Intelligence 32 (1):57-95.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   134 citations  
  • Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change.Hirofumi Katsuno & Alberto O. Mendelzon - 1991 - Artificial Intelligence 52 (3):263-294.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   124 citations  
  • (1 other version)How to give it up: A survey of some formal aspects of the logic of theory change.David Makinson - 1985 - Synthese 62 (3):347 - 363.
    The paper surveys some recent work on formal aspects of the logic of theory change. It begins with a general discussion of the intuitive processes of contraction and revision of a theory, and of differing strategies for their formal study. Specific work is then described, notably Gärdenfors'' postulates for contraction and revision, maxichoice contraction and revision functions and the condition of orderliness, partial meet contraction and revision functions and the condition of relationality, and finally the operations of safe contraction and (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   43 citations  
  • On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change.David Makinson - 1987 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 16 (4):383 - 394.
    Describes and discusses the rather special behaviour of one of the postulates in the AGM account of theory change.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   72 citations  
  • Belief contraction without recovery.Sven Ove Hansson - 1991 - Studia Logica 50 (2):251 - 260.
    The postulate of recovery is commonly regarded to be the intuitively least compelling of the six basic Gärdenfors postulates for belief contraction. We replace recovery by the seemingly much weaker postulate of core-retainment, which ensures that if x is excluded from K when p is contracted, then x plays some role for the fact that K implies p. Surprisingly enough, core-retainment together with four of the other Gärdenfors postulates implies recovery for logically closed belief sets. Reasonable contraction operators without recovery (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   61 citations