Iterable AGM Functions

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

   Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

2. C. Alchourrón and D. Makinson. The logic of theory change: Safe contraction. Studia Logica, 44, 405–422, 1985.

   Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

3. Alchourrón et al.,1985] C. Alchourr6n, 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.

   Google Scholar 

4. V. Becher. Unified semantics for revision and update, or the theory of lazy update. In Annals of the 24 Jornadas Argentinas de Inforrnótica e Investigación Operativa (fAI1O), 1995.

   Google Scholar 

5. V. Becher. Iterable AGM revision based on fixed orderings. Technical report, Depar-tamento de Computaci6n. FCEyN. UBA, January 1998.

   Google Scholar 

6. C. Boutilier. Iterated revision and minimal revision of conditional beliefs. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 25, 263–305, 1996.

   Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

7. A. Darwiche and J. Pearl. On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artificial Intelligence, 89, 1–29, 1997.

   Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

8. M. Freund and D. Lehmann. Belief revision and rational inference. Technical Report 94–16, The Leibniz Center. Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel, 1994.

   Google Scholar 

9. N. Friedman and 1. Halpern. A qualitative Markov assumption and its implications for belief change. In Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (Portland, OR, 1996), pp. 263–273. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1996.

   Google Scholar 

10. Gärdenfors and Makinson, 1988] P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge (Pacific Grove, CA, 1988),pp. 83–95, Los Altos, CA, 1988. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

11. P. Gärdenfors and D. Makinson. Relations between the logic of theory change and nonmonotonic logic. In The logic of theory change (Konstanz, 1989), pp. 185205. Springer, Berlin, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

13. Hansson, 1994] S. Hansson. Kernel contraction. The Journal of Symbolic Logic,59 845–859, 1994. [Hansson, To come] S. Hansson. A Textbook of Belief Dynamics. Kluwer Academic Publisher, To come. Manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

14. H. Katsuno and A. Mendelzon. On the difference between updating a knowledge database and revising it. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pp. 387–394, Cambridge, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

15. Lehmann et al.,1996] D. Lehmann, M. Magidor and K. Schlechta. Distance semantics for belief revision. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge,Y. Shoham, ed. pp. 137–146, San Francisco, 1996. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

16. D. Lehmann. Belief revision, revised. In IJCAI-95, Vol. 1, 2 (Montreal, PQ, 1995), pp. 1534–1540. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

17. D. Makinson. Five faces of minimality. Studia Logica. An International Journal for Symbolic Logic, 52, 339–379, 1993.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

18. A. Nayak. Iterated belief change based on epistemic entrenchment. Erkenntnis. An International Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 41, 353–390. 1994.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

19. H. Ron. On the logic of theory change: More maps between different kinds of contraction functions. In Belief Revision, volume 29, P. Gärdenfors, ed. pp. 122–141. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

20. H. Rott. Preferential belief change using generalized epistemic entrenchment. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 1, 45–78, 1992.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

21. W. Spohn. Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In Causation in Decision, Belief Change and Statistics, volume 2, W. Harper and B. Skyrms, eds. pp. 105–134. D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

22. M. Williams. Iterated theory base change: A computational model. In IJCAI-95 Proceeding of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1541–1550. Morgan Kauffman, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references