Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Autodoxastic Conditional Reasoning: The Monotonic Case

  • Conference paper
Book cover Modeling and Using Context (CONTEXT 2011)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 6967))

  • 880 Accesses

Abstract

Ramsey’s test for conditionals seems to be in conflict with the so-called Thomason conditionals. A Thomason conditional is a conditional in which either the antecedent or the consequent is a statement about the reasoning agent’s own beliefs. Several authors have pointed out that resolving the apparent conflict is to be sought by abandoning the belief revision interpretation of the Ramsey test in favor of a suppositional interpretation. We formalize an AGM-style notion of supposition, showing that it is identical to revision for agents who are not autodoxastic—agents who do not reason about their beliefs. We present particular realizations of supposition in terms of revision and identify the relations between the conditionals supposition and revision give rise to.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Stalnaker, R.: A theory of conditionals. In: Rescher, N. (ed.) Studies in Logical Theory. American Philosophical Quarterly, Monograph Series, vol. 2, pp. 98–112. Basil Blackwell Publishers, Oxford (1968)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alchourron, C.E., Gärdenfors, P., Makinson, D.: On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50(2), 510–530 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Nebel, B.: A knowledge level analysis of belief revision. In: Brachman, R., Levesque, H., Reiter, R. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the First International Conference (KR 1989), pp. 301–311. Morgan Kaufmann, Toronto (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Williams, M.A.: Transmutations of knowledge systems. In: Doyle, J., Sandewall, E., Torasso, P. (eds.) Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference (KR 1994), pp. 619–629. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1994)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Gärdenfors, P.: Belief revisions and the Ramsey test for conditionals. The Philosophical Review 95(1), 81–93 (1986)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ismail, H.O.: A reason maintenance perspective on relevant Ramsey conditionals. Logic Journal of the IGPL 18(4), 508–529 (2010)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. van Fraassen, B.: Review of Brian Ellis, Relational belief systems. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 10(3), 497–511 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chalmers, D., Hájek, A.: Ramsey + Moore = God. Analysis 67, 170–172 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barnett, D.: Ramsey + Moore ≠ God. Analysis 68, 168–174 (2008)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Willer, M.: New surprises for the Ramsey test. Synthese 176, 291–309 (2010)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Hannes, L.: God − Moore = Ramsey (a reply to Chalmers and Hájek). Topoi 30(1), 47–51 (2011)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Moore, R.C.: Semantical considerations on nonmonotonic logic. Artificial Intelligence 25, 75–94 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Perlis, D.: Languages with self-refernce I: Foundations. Artificial Intelligence 25, 301–322 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Ismail, H.O.: Log A B: An algebraic logic of belief. In: Beierle, C., Kern-Isberner, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the Workshop on Relational Approaches to Knowledge Representation and Learning: Workshop of the 32nd German Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 2–18 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ismail, H.O.: Log A B: A first-order, non-paradoxical, algebraic logic of belief. Logic Journal of the IGPL (in Press)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Burris, S., Sankappanavar, H.P.: A Course in Universal Algebra. Springer, Heidelberg (1982)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Hintikka, J.: Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (1962)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., Vardi, M.: Reasoning about Knowledge. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaplan, D.: Quantifying in. Synthese 19, 178–214 (1968)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Giunchiglia, F., Serafini, L.: Multilanguage hierarchial logics (or: How we can do without modal logics). Artficial Intelligence 65, 29–70 (1994)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. Katsuno, H., Mendelzon, A.: On the difference between updating a knowledge base and revising it. In: Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proceedings of the second International Conference (KR 1991), pp. 387–394 (1991)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, German University, Cairo, Egypt

    Haythem O. Ismail & Aya S. Mahfouz

Authors
  1. Haythem O. Ismail
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aya S. Mahfouz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. TecO/Pervasive Computing Systems, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Am Fasanengarten 5, 76131, Karlsruhe, Germany

    Michael Beigl  & Hedda R. Schmidtke  & 

  2. Department of Communication, Business and Information Technologies, Roskilde University, P.O. box 260, 4000, Roskilde, Denmark

    Henning Christiansen

  3. Institut für Informatik, AG Erklärungsfähige Softwaresystems, Universität Hildesheim, Marienburger Platz 22, 31141, Hildesheim, Germany

    Thomas R. Roth-Berghofer

  4. Department of Computer and Information Science, Intelligent Systems Group, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Sem Saelandsvei 7-9,, 7491, Trondheim, Norway

    Anders Kofod-Petersen

  5. Cognition and Communication Research Centre, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 8ST, UK

    Kenny R. Coventry

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ismail, H.O., Mahfouz, A.S. (2011). Autodoxastic Conditional Reasoning: The Monotonic Case. In: Beigl, M., Christiansen, H., Roth-Berghofer, T.R., Kofod-Petersen, A., Coventry, K.R., Schmidtke, H.R. (eds) Modeling and Using Context. CONTEXT 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 6967. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24279-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-24279-3_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-24278-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-24279-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation