# The Logic of Belief Change and Nonadditive Probability

- 134 Downloads

## Abstract

The present paper investigates the rationality conditions on belief change of a theory which has recently come to the forefront of philosophical logic and artificial intelligence — the Alchourrón-Gärdenfors-Makinson (AGM) theory of belief change.^{1} In contradistinction with the well-established Bayesian approach to belief revision, this one never explicitly refers to the individual’s decisions. Nor does it formalize the individual’s beliefs in measure-theoretic — let alone probabilistic — terms. The building blocks of the AGM theory are propositions. The major mathematical constraint is that these propositions are expressed in a language which in an appropriate sense includes the sentential calculus. *Epistemic states*, or states of belief, are captured by deductively closed sets of propositions. *Epistemic attitudes* — belief, disbelief, and indeterminacy — are then described by means of the membership relation. The *epistemic input*, that is the incoming information, is normally restricted to be propositional. *Epistemic changes* are axiomatized in terms of the following items: the input which bring them about, the initial epistemic state and the resulting epistemic state. There are three such operations: contraction, expansion and revision. In the principal case at least, *contraction* may be viewed as a move from belief or disbelief to indeterminacy, *expansion* as a move from indeterminacy to either belief or disbelief, and finally *revision* as a move from either determinate attitude to the opposite one. This is all good commonsense in an initially barren mathematical framework. The soberness of the approach makes it the more remarkable that it leads to important results, one of which will occupy the center stage here.

## Keywords

Binary Relation Boolean Algebra Epistemic State Belief Change Philosophical Logic## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P. and D. Makinson (1985), “On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Functions for Contraction and Revision,”
*Journal of Symbolic Logic*,**50**, 510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Chateauneuf, A. and J.Y. Jaffray (1989), “Some Characterizations of Lower Probabilities and Other Monotone Capacities Through the Use of Moebius Inversion,”
*Mathematical Social Sciences*,**17**, 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Dubois, D. and H. Prade, (1985),
*Théorie des possibilités, applications à la représentation des connaissances en informatique*. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar - Dubois, D. and H. Prade, (1991), “Epistemic Entrenchment and Possibilistic Logic,”
*Artificial Intelligence*,**50**, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Furhmann, A. (1991), “Theory Contraction Through Base Contraction,”
*Journal of Philosophical Logic*,**20**, 175–203.Google Scholar - Gärdenfors, P. (1988),
*Knowledge in Flux*. Cambridge ( Mass. ): The MIT Press.Google Scholar - Gärdenfors, P. and D. Makinson (1988), “Revisions of Knowledge Systems Using Epistemic Entrenchment,” in: M.Y. Vardi, Proceedings of the Second Conference on
*Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge*. Los Altos ( Cal. ): Morgan Kaumann, 97–112.Google Scholar - Gärdenfors, P. and D. Makinson (1991), “Nonmonotonic Inference Based on Expectations,” unpublished paper.Google Scholar
- Grove, A. (1988), “Two Modellings for Theory Change,”
*Journal of Philosophical Logic*,**17**, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Halmos, P.R. (1974),
*Lectures on Boolean Algebra*. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Hansson, S.O. (1991), “Belief Contraction Without Recovery,”
*Studia Logica*,**50**, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Keynes, J.M. (1921),
*Treatise on Probability*. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar - Levi, I. (1977), “Subjunctives, Dispositions and Chances,”
*Synthese*,**34**, 423–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Levi, I. (1983),
*The Enterprise of Knowledge*, Cambridge ( Mass. ): The MIT Press.Google Scholar - Levi, I. (1991),
*The Fixation of Belief and Its Undoing*, Cambridge, CUP Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Makinson, D. (1985), “How to Give It Up: A Survey of Some Formal Aspects of The Logic of Theory Change,”
*Synthese*,**62**, 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Makinson, D. (1987), “On the Status of the Postulate of Recovery in the Logic of Theory Change,”
*Journal of Philosophical Logic*,**16**, 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Rott, H. (1991), “Two Methods of Constructing Contractions and Revisions of Knowledge Systems”,
*Journal of Philosophical Logic*,**20**, 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Schlechta, K. (1991), “Theory Revision and Probability,”
*Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic*,**32**, 307–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar - Shafer, G. (1976),
*A Mathematical Theory of Evidence*, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar - Tarski, A. (1935–1936), “Grundziige des Systemenkalküls,”
*Fundamenta Mathematicae*,**25**, 503–526, and**26**, 283–301. English translation in A. Tarski,*Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics*(1956). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar