Computer Science ›› 2016, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (9): 87-90.doi: 10.11896/j.issn.1002-137X.2016.09.016

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Topological Characterization of AGM Belief Contraction Operator

MENG Hua, YUAN Ya-yan, CHU Jie-lei and WANG Hong-jun   

  • Online:2018-12-01 Published:2018-12-01

Abstract: When the background language is finite,there are different semantic methods to characterize belief change ope-rators,which are easy to construct.However,when the background language is infinite,these methods are usually unsuitable.Grdenfors and Makinson proposed a representation model using epistemic entrenchment to characterize belief contraction over an infinite language.But they did not show us how to construct a concrete epistemic entrenchment.In this paper,a new model called “epistemic chain” was introduced to characterize AGM-style belief contraction operators.An epistemic chain was a chain of closed set (about set inclusion) based on a topology on the set of all possible worlds.The relation between epistemic entrenchment and epistemic chain was discussed.Comparing with epistemic entrenchment,epistemic chain is simpler in structure and easier to construct.

Key words: Knowledge representation,Belief contraction,Epistemic entrenchment,Topological space

[1] Harmelen F,Lifschitz V,Porter B.Handbook of KnowledgeRepresentation[M].Elsevier Science,2008:317-359
[2] Alchourron C E,Grdenfors P,Makinson D.On the logic of theory change:Partial meet contraction and revision functions[J].Journal of Symbolic Logic,1985,50(2):510-530
[3] Peppas P.The limit assumption and multiple revision[J].Journal of Logic and Computation,2004,14(3):355-371
[4] Peppas P,Koutras D,Williams M A.Maps in multiple beliefchange[J].ACM Transactions on Computational Logic,2012,13(4):929-956
[5] Meng Hua,Kou Hui,Li San-jiang.Belief revision with general epistemic state[C]∥Proc.of AAAI 2015.AAAI Press,2015
[6] Grdenfors P,Makinson D.Revisions of knowledge systemsusing epistemic entrenchment[C]∥Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge.Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.,1988:83-95
[7] Peppas P,Williams M A.Belief change and semiorders[C]∥Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning.2014
[8] Meng Hua,Li San-jiang.A Topological Characterisation of Belief Revision over Infinite Propositional Language [C]∥LNAI:Proc of PRICAI-2014.Berlin:Springer,2014:77-90
[9] Hansson S O.Multiple and iterated contraction reduced to single-step single sentence contraction [J].Synthese,2010,173(2):153-177
[10] Darwiche A,Pearl J.On the logic of iterated belief revision[J].Artificial Intelligence,1997,89(1):1-29
[11] Lindstrm L,Segerberg K.21 modal logic and philosophy.Stu-dies in Logic and Practical Reasoning [M].Elsevier B.V.2007,3:1149-1214
[12] Rott H,Pagnucco M.Severe withdrawal (and recovery) [J].Journal of Philosophical Logic,1999,28(5):501-547
[13] Zhang D,Foo N.Infinitary belief revision [J].Journal of Philosophical Logic,2001,30(6):525-570
[14] Harper W.Rational conceptual change[C]∥Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association.Symposia and Invited Papers,Vol.2,7:462-494
[15] Levi I.The enterprise of knowledge [M].Cambridge:MITPress,1980
[16] Grove A.Two modellings for theory change [J].Journal of Phi-losophical Logic,1988,17(2):157-170
[17] Katsuno H,Mendelzon A O.Propositional knowledge base revision and minimal change [J].Artificial Intelligence,1991,52(3):263-294
[18] Jin Y,Thielscher M.Iterated belief revision,revised [J].Artificial Intelligence,2007,171(1):1-18
[19] Darwiche A,Pearl J.On the logic of iterated belief revision [J].Artificial Intelligence,1997,89(1):1-29
[20] Surendonk T.Revising some basic proofs in belief revision [R].1997
[21] Kelley J.General topology [M].Springer,1975

No related articles found!
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!