Abstract
The AGM theory of belief contraction is extended tomultiple contraction, i.e. to contraction by a set of sentences rather than by a single sentence. There are two major variants: Inpackage contraction all the sentences must be removed from the belief set, whereas inchoice contraction it is sufficient that at least one of them is removed. Constructions of both types of multiple contraction are offered and axiomatically characterized. Neither package nor choice contraction can in general be reduced to contractions by single sentences; in the finite case choice contraction allows for reduction.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alcourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., and Makinson, D., 1985, “On the logic of theory change: partial meet contraction and revision functions,”Journal of Symbolic Logic 50, 510–530.
Alchourrón, C. E. and Makinson, D., 1981, “Hierarchies of regulations and their logic,” pp. 125–148 inNew Studies in Deontic Logic, R. Hilpinen ed., Dordrecht: Reidel.
Fuhrmann, A., 1988,Relevant Logics, Modal Logics, and Theory Change, PhD thesis, Canberra: Australian National University.
Fuhrmann, A., 1991, “Theory contraction through base contraction,”Journal of Philosophical Logic 20, 175–203.
Fuhrmann, A., 1994, “General contraction,” in preparation.
Gärdenfors, P., 1988,Knowledge in Flux, Cambridge, MA: MIT Pres, Bradford Books.
Gentzen, G., 1934–1935, “Untersuchungen über das logische Schliessen,”Mathematische Zeitschrift 39, 176–210, 405–431.
Hansson, S. O., 1989, “New operators for theory change,”Theoria 55, 114–132.
Hansson, S. O., 1991, “Belief revision without recovery,”Studia Logica 50, 251–260.
Hansson, S. O., 1992a, “A dyadic representation of belief,” inBelief Revision, P. Gärdenfors ed., Cambridge: University Press.
Hansson, S. O., 1992b, “Similarity semantics and minimal changes of belief,”Erkenntnis 37, 401–429.
Hansson, S. O., 1992c, “Reversing the Levi identity,”Journal of Philosophical Logic, forthcoming.
Levi, I., 1980,The Enterprise of Knowledge, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levi, I., 1991,The Fixation of Belief and Its Undoing, Cambridge University Press.
Makinson, D., 1985, “How to give it up,”Synthese 62, 347–363.
Makinson, D., 1987, “On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change,”Journal of Philosophical Logic 16, 383–394.
Makinson, D. and Gärdenfors, P., 1991, “Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic,” pp. 185–205 inThe Logic of Theory Change, A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau, eds. LNAI 465, Berlin Springer-Verlag.
Makinson, D. and Gärdenfors, “Nonmonotonic reasoning based on expectations,”Artificial Intelligence.
Meyer, R. K., 1976,A theory of Theories, Logic Group, Australian National University, Canberra, (updated typescript, 164 pp.).
Niederée, R., 1991, “Multiple contraction,” pp. 322–334 inThe Logic of Theory Change, A. Fuhrmann and M. Morreau. eds. LNAI 465, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Rott, H., 1992, “Modellings for belief change: base contractions, multiple contractions, and epistemic entrenchment,”Konstanzer Berichte 20, March.
Shoesmith, D. J. and Smiley, T. J., 1978,Multiple-Conclusion Logic, Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fuhrmann, A., Hansson, S.O. A survey of multiple contractions. J Logic Lang Inf 3, 39–75 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01066356
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01066356