The irreducibility of iterated to single revision

Article English OPEN
Booth, Richard ; Jake, Chandler (2017)

After a number of decades of research into the dynamics of rational belief, the belief revision theory community remains split on the appropriate handling of sequences of changes in view, the issue of so-called iterated revision. It has long been suggested that the matter is at least partly settled by facts pertaining to the results of various single revisions of one’s initial state of belief. Recent work has pushed this thesis further, offering various strong principles that ultimately result in a wholesale reduction of iterated to one-shot revision. The present paper offers grounds to hold that these principles should be significantly weakened and that the reductionist thesis should ultimately be rejected. Furthermore, the considerations provided suggest a close connection between the logic of iterated belief change and the logic of evidential relevance.
  • References (12)
    12 references, page 1 of 2

    Alchourrón, C., P. Gärdenfors & D. Makinson (1985). On the Logic of heory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision FunctJoiuornnsa.l of Symbolic LogicL, 2: 118-139.

    Booth, R., S. Chopra, and T. Meyer (2005). Restrained RevisiPornoc.eedings of the Sixth Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action and Change (N. RAC) Booth, R. and T. Meyer (2006). Admissible and Restrained ReviJsoiuorna.l of Artiicial Intelligence Researc h,26: 127-151.

    Boutilier, C. (1996). Iterated Revision and Minimal Change of Conditional Beliefs. Journal of Philosophical L,oXgiXcV, 3: 263-305.

    Darwiche, A. & Pearl, J. (1997). On the Logic of Iterated Belief RevAirstiioinc.ial Intelligence, LXXXIX, 1-2:1-29.

    Grove, A. (1988). Two Modellings for heory ChangJeo,urnal of Philosophical L,ogic XVII, 2: 157-170.

    Hansson, S.O. (1992). In Defense of the Ramsey TestJo.urnal of Philosop h,LyXXXIX, 10: 522-540.

    Katsuno, H. and A. O. Mendelzon (1991). Propositional Knowledge Base Revision and Minimal ChangAer.tiicial Intelligenc,eLII, 3:263-294.

    Nayak, A. C. (1994). Iterated Belief Change Based on Epistemic EntrenchErmken-t. ntnis, XLI, 3:353-390.

    Nayak, A. C., M. Pagnucco, P. Peppas (2003). Dynamic Belief Revision OperatoArrstiicial Intelligenc,e146: 193-228.

    Rott, H. (2009). Shiting Priorities: Simple Representations for Twenty-Seven Iterated heory Change Operators. In D. Makinson, J. Malinowski and H. Wansing (eds.), Towards Mathematical Philoso,pThreynds in Logi,cXXVIII. Dordrecht: Springer.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    Online Research @ Cardiff - IRUS-UK 0 16
Share - Bookmark