Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Blockage Contraction

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Blockage contraction is an operation of belief contraction that acts directly on the outcome set, i.e. the set of logically closed subsets of the original belief set K that are potential contraction outcomes. Blocking is represented by a binary relation on the outcome set. If a potential outcome X blocks another potential outcome Y, and X does not imply the sentence p to be contracted, then Y ≠ K ÷ p. The contraction outcome K ÷ p is equal to the (unique) inclusion-maximal unblocked element of the outcome set that does not imply p. Conditions on the blocking relation are specified that ensure the existence of such a unique inclusion-maximal set for all sentences p. Blockage contraction is axiomatically characterized and its relations to AGM-style operations are investigated. In a finite-based framework, every transitively relational partial meet contraction is also a blockage contraction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alchourrón, C., & Makinson, D. (1981). Hierarchies of regulation and their logic. In R. Hilpinen (Ed.), New studies in deontic logic (pp. 125–148). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Alchourrón, C., & Makinson, D. (1982). On the logic of theory change: Contraction functions and their associated revision functions. Theoria, 48, 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cayrol, C., Dupin de Saint-Cyr, F., & Lagasquie-Schiex, M.-C. (2010). Change in abstract argumentation frameworks: Adding an argument. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 38, 49–84.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Dung, P. M. (1995). On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artificial Intelligence, 77, 321–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Falappa, M. A., García, A. J., Kern-Isberner, G., & Simari, G. R. (2011). On the evolving relation between belief revision and argumentation. Knowledge Engineering Review, 26, 35–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fermé, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2011). AGM 25 years. Twenty-five years of research in belief change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 295–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fermé, E., Saez, K., & Sanz, P. (2003). Multiple kernel contraction. Studia Logica, 73, 183–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fuhrmann, A., & Hansson, S. O. (1994). A survey of multiple contractions. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 3, 39–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gärdenfors, P. (1982). Rules for rational changes of belief. In T. Pauli (Ed.), Philosophical essays dedicated to Lennart Åqvist on his fiftieth birthday. Philosophical studies (Vol. 34, pp. 88–101). Published by the Philosophical Society and the Department of Philosophy. Uppsala: University of Uppsala.

  11. Glaister, S. M. (2000). Recovery recovered. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 29, 171–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Grove, A. (1988). Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17, 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hansson, S. O. (1991). Belief contraction without recovery. Studia Logica, 50, 251–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hansson, S. O. (1992). Similarity semantics and minimal changes of belief. Erkenntnis, 37, 401–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hansson, S. O. (1992). A dyadic representation of belief. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief revision (pp. 89–121). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Hansson, S. O. (1993). Theory contraction and base contraction unified. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 58, 602–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hansson, S. O. (1994). Kernel contraction. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 59, 845–859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hansson, S. O. (1999). A textbook of belief dynamics. Theory change and database updating. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  19. Hansson, S. O. (2008). Specified meet contraction. Erkenntnis, 69, 31–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Levi, I. (1977). Subjunctives, dispositions and chances. Synthese, 34, 423–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Levi, I. (1991). The fixation of belief and its undoing. Cambridge, MA.: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Makinson, D. (1997). On the force of some apparent counterexamples to recovery. In E. Garzón Valdéz, et al. (Eds.), Normative systems in legal and moral theory: Festschrift for Carlos Alchourrón and Eugenio Bulygin (pp. 475–481). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Meyer, T., Heidema, J., Labuschagne, W., & Leenen, L., (2002). Systematic withdrawal. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 31, 415–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rott, H., & Pagnucco, M. (1999). Severe withdrawal (and recovery). Journal of Philosophical Logic, 28, 501–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sandqvist, T. (2000). On why the best should always meet. Economics and Philosophy, 16, 287–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 78, 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

    Sven Ove Hansson

Authors
  1. Sven Ove Hansson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Ove Hansson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hansson, S.O. Blockage Contraction. J Philos Logic 42, 415–442 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9231-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9231-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation