Residual Contraction

  • Marco Garapa
  • Maurício D. L. ReisEmail author


In this paper, we propose and axiomatically characterize residual contractions, a new kind of contraction operators for belief bases. We establish that the class of partial meet contractions is a strict subclass of the class of residual contractions. We identify an extra condition that may be added to the definition of residual contractions, which is such that the class of residual contractions that satisfy it coincides with the class of partial meet contractions. We investigate the interrelations in the sense of (strict) inclusion among the class of residual contractions and other classes of well known contraction operators for belief bases.


Belief change Belief bases Contraction Axiomatic characterizations Residual contractions Residuums 



We wish to thank Rineke Verbrugge (the Associated Editor handling this paper), and the two reviewers of JoLLI for their valuable comments on a previous version, which have contributed to a significant improvement. This work was partially supported by FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia through Projects UID/MAT/04674/2019 (CIMA) and PTDC/CCI-COM/30990/2017.


  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alchourrón, C., & Makinson, D. (1981). Hierarchies of regulations and their logic. In R. Hilpinen (Ed.), New studies in deontic logic: Norms, actions, and the foundations of ethics (pp. 125–148). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alchourrón, C., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Safe contraction. Studia Logica, 44, 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fermé, E., Garapa, M., & Reis, M. D. L. (2017). On ensconcement and contraction. Journal of Logic and Computation, 27(7), 2011–2042. Scholar
  5. Fermé, E., & Hansson, S. O. (2011). AGM 25 years: Twenty-five years of research in belief change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40, 295–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fermé, E., Krevneris, M., & Reis, M. (2008). An axiomatic characterization of ensconcement-based contraction. Journal of Logic and Computation, 18(5), 739–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuhrmann, A., & Hansson, S. O. (1994). A survey of multiple contraction. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 3, 39–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Garapa, M. (2017). Advances on belief base dynamics. Ph.D. thesis, Universidade da Madeira.Google Scholar
  9. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D. (1988). Revisions of knowledge systems using epistemic entrenchment. In: M.Y. Vardi (ed.) Proceedings of the Second Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge, pp. 83–95. Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos.Google Scholar
  11. Grove, A. (1988). Two modellings for theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansson, S. O. (1989). New operators for theory change. Theoria, 55, 114–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansson, S. O. (1991a). Belief base dynamics. Ph.D. thesis, Uppsala University.Google Scholar
  14. Hansson, S. O. (1991b). Belief contraction without recovery. Studia Logica, 50, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansson, S. O. (1992). A dyadic representation of belief. In P. Gärdenfors (Ed.), Belief revision (pp. 89–121)., no. 29 in Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansson, S. O. (1993). Reversing the Levi identity. Journal of Philosophycal Logic, 22, 637–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansson, S. O. (1994). Kernel contraction. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 59, 845–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansson, S. O. (1999). A textbook of belief dynamics. Dordrecht: Theory Change and Database Updating. Applied Logic Series. Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansson, S. O. (2017). Descriptor revision., Trends in logic Berlin: Springer.
  20. Levi, I. (1991). The fixation of belief and its undoing: changing beliefs through inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rott, H. (2000). Two dogmas of belief revision. Journal of Philosophy, 97(9), 503–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rott, H., & Hansson, S. (2014). Safe contraction revisited. In S. O. Hansson (Ed.), David Makinson on classical methods for non-classical problems, outstanding contributions to logic (Vol. 3, pp. 35–70). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Williams, M. A. (1994). On the logic of theory base change. In C. MacNish (Ed.), Logics in artificial intelligence., no. 835 in Lecture Notes Series in Computer Science Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculdade de Ciências Exatas e da EngenhariaUniversidade da MadeiraFunchalPortugal
  2. 2.CIMA - Centro de Investigação em Matemática e AplicaçõesFunchalPortugal

Personalised recommendations