Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-d5zgf Total loading time: 0.249 Render date: 2021-02-25T09:04:05.123Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }
EnglishFrançais
The Review of Symbolic Logic The Review of Symbolic Logic

Article contents

OUTCOME LEVEL ANALYSIS OF BELIEF CONTRACTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2013

SVEN OVE HANSSON
SVEN OVE HANSSON
Affiliation:
Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm
Corresponding
E-mail address:
soh@kth.se
Get access
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The outcome set of a belief change operator is the set of outcomes that can be obtained with it. Axiomatic characterizations are reported for the outcome sets of the standard AGM contraction operators and eight types of base-generated contraction. These results throw new light on the properties of some of these operators.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 183 - 204
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.
If you should have access and can't see this content please contact technical support.

References

Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchourrón, C., & Makinson, D., (1981). Hierarchies of regulation and their logic. In Hilpinen, R., editor. New Studies in Deontic Logic. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alchourrón, C. E. and Makinson, D. (1982). On the logic of theory of change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria, 48, 14–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falappa, M. A., Fermé, E., & Kern-Isberner, G. (2006). On the logic of theory change: Relations between incision and selection functions. In Brewka, G., Coradeschi, S., Perini, A., and Traverso, P., editors. EJAI 2006. 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Proceedings. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 402–406.Google Scholar
Fermé, E., & Rodriguez, R. (1998). Semi-contraction: Axioms and construction. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 39, 332–345.Google Scholar
Fermé, E., Saez, K., & Sanz, P., (2003). Multiple kernel contraction. Studia Logica, 73, 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1991). Belief contraction without recovery. Studia Logica, 50, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1993). Theory contraction and base contraction unified. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58, 602–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1994). Kernel contraction. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 59, 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1999a). A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Theory Change and Database Updating. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (1999b). A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Solutions to Exercises. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S. O. (2008). Specified meet contraction. Erkenntnis, 69, 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. (1977). Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese, 34, 423–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, I. (1991). The Fixation of Belief and Its Undoing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rott, H. (1993). Belief contraction in the context of the general theory of rational choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58, 1426–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 27 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 25th February 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

4 Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

OUTCOME LEVEL ANALYSIS OF BELIEF CONTRACTION
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

OUTCOME LEVEL ANALYSIS OF BELIEF CONTRACTION
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

OUTCOME LEVEL ANALYSIS OF BELIEF CONTRACTION
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *