Abstract
This article investigates the properties of multistate top revision, a dichotomous (AGM-style) model of belief revision that is based on an underlying model of probability revision. A proposition is included in the belief set if and only if its probability is either 1 or infinitesimally close to 1. Infinitesimal probabilities are used to keep track of propositions that are currently considered to have negligible probability, so that they are available if future information makes them more plausible. Multistate top revision satisfies a slightly modified version of the set of basic and supplementary AGM postulates, except the inclusion and success postulates. This result shows that hyperreal probabilities can provide us with efficient tools for overcoming the well known difficulties in combining dichotomous and probabilistic models of belief change.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adams, E.W., Probability and the logic of conditionals, in: J. Hintikka, and P. Suppes (eds.) Aspects of Inductive Logic, Norht-Holland, Amsterdam, 1966, pp. 265–316.
Alchourrón, C.E., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson, On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions”, Journal of Symbolic Logic 50: 510–530, 1985.
Beierle, C., and G. Kern-Isberner, A conceptual agent model based on a uniform approach to various belief operations, in B. Mertsching, M. Hund, and Z. Aziz, (eds.), KI’09: Proceedings of the 32nd annual German conference on Advances in artificial intelligence, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009, pp. 273–280.
Benci, V., L. Horsten, and S. Wenmackers, Infinitesimal probabilities, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69(2): 509–552, 2018.
Chopra, S., A. Ghose, and T. Meyer, Non-prioritized ranked belief change, Journal of Philosophical Logic 32(4): 417–443, 2003.
Falappa, M.A., G. Kern-Isberner, M.D.L. Reis, and G.R. Simari, Prioritized and non-prioritized multiple change on belief bases, Journal of Philosophical Logic 41(1): 77–113, 2012.
Fermé, E., and S.O. Hansson, Selective revision, Studia Logica, 63(3): 331–342, 1999.
Fermé, E., and S.O. Hansson, Shielded Contraction, in: H. Rott, and M.-A. Williams, (eds.), Frontiers of Belief Revision, Kluwer, 2001, pp. 85–107.
Fuhrmann, A., Reflective modalities and theory change, Synthese 81: 115–134, 1989.
Gärdenfors, P., Belief Revisions and the Ramsey Test for Conditionals, Philosophical Review 95(1): 81–93, 1986.
Gärdenfors, P. Knowledge in Flux: modeling the dynamics of epistemic states, MIT Press, 1989.
Grove, A., Two modellings for theory change, Journal of Philosophical Logic 17: 157–170, 1988.
Hansson, S.O., Semi-revision, Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logic 7(1–2): 151–175, 1997.
Hansson, S.O., A Survey of Non-Prioritized Belief Revision, Erkenntnis 50: 413–427, 1999.
Hansson, S.O., Descriptor Revision. Belief Change Through Direct Choice, Springer, Cham, 2017.
Hansson, S.O., Review of Hannes Leitgeb, The stability of belief. How rational belief coheres with probability, Journal of Philosophy 115(5): 276–280, 2018.
Hansson, S.O., Revising Probabilities and Full Beliefs, Journal of Philosophical Logic 49(5): 1005–1039, 2020.
Hansson, S.O., E. Fermé, J. Cantwell, and M. Falappa, Credibility-limited revision, Journal of Symbolic Logic 66(4): 1581–1596, 2001.
Jeffrey, R.C., The Logic of Decision, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983.
Katsuno, H., and A.O. Mendelzon, On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it, in: Pe. Gärdenfors, (ed.), Belief Revision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 183–203.
Keisler, H.J., Elementary calculus. An infinitesimal approach, 2nd ed., Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, Boston, 1986.
Keller, A.M., and M.W. Wilkins, On the use of an extended relational model to handle changing incomplete information, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 11(7): 620–633, 1985.
Kern-Isberner, G., Linking Iterated Belief Change Operations to Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Proceedings, Eleventh International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, (KR-08), 2008, pp. 166–176.
Konieczny, S., and R. Pino Perez, Improvement operators, in: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR-08), 2008, pp. 177–186.
Kyburg, H., Probability and the logic of rational belief, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, 1961.
Leitgeb, H., The stability of belief: how rational belief coheres with probability, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2017.
Levi, I., Iteration of conditionals and the Ramsey test, Synthese 76: 49–81, 1988.
Makinson, D., The paradox of the preface, Analysis 25: 205–207, 1965.
Makinson, D., Screened revision, Theoria 63: 14–23, 1997.
Mazzieri, M., and A.F. Dragoni, Ontology revision as non-prioritized belief revision, in: P. Haase, A. Hotho, L. Chen, E. Ong, and P. C. Mauroux, (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Emergent Semantics and Ontology Evolution, ESOE 2007, co-located with ISWC 2007 + ASWC 2007, Busan, Korea, 2007, pp. 58–69.
Pearl, J., Probabilistic Semantics for Nonmonotonic Reasoning: A Survey, Proceedings, First International. Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, 1989, pp. 505–516.
Perrotin, E., and F.R. Velázquez-Quesada, A Semantic Approach to Non-prioritized Belief Revision, Logic Journal of the IGPL, in press, 2020.
Rott, H., Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 1(1): 45–78, 1992.
Rott, H., Change, Choice and Inference: A study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
Schurz, G., Impossibility results for rational belief, Noûs 53(1): 134–159, 2019.
Skyrms, B., Causal necessity: a pragmatic investigation of the necessity of laws, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1980.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council, Grant 2020-01460.
Funding
Open access funding provided by Uppsala University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Presented by Heinrich Wansing
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hansson, S.O. A Characterization of Probability-based Dichotomous Belief Revision. Stud Logica 110, 511–543 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-021-09961-2
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-021-09961-2