Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T10:34:22.714Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DYNAMIC HYPERINTENSIONAL BELIEF REVISION

Part of: General logic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2020

AYBÜKE ÖZGÜN  and
FRANCESCO BERTO
AYBÜKE ÖZGÜN
Affiliation:
INSTITUTE FOR LOGIC, LANGUAGE AND COMPUTATION UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM SCIENCE PARK 107 1098 XG AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS and ARCHÉ UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS 17-19 COLLEGE STREET ST. ANDREWS, FIFEKY16 9AL SCOTLAND E-mail: a.ozgun@uva.nl E-mail: fb96@st-andrews.ac.uk
FRANCESCO BERTO
Affiliation:
INSTITUTE FOR LOGIC, LANGUAGE AND COMPUTATION UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM SCIENCE PARK 107 1098 XG AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS and ARCHÉ UNIVERSITY OF ST. ANDREWS 17-19 COLLEGE STREET ST. ANDREWS, FIFEKY16 9AL SCOTLAND E-mail: a.ozgun@uva.nl E-mail: fb96@st-andrews.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

We propose a dynamic hyperintensional logic of belief revision for non-omniscient agents, reducing the logical omniscience phenomena affecting standard doxastic/epistemic logic as well as AGM belief revision theory. Our agents don’t know all a priori truths; their belief states are not closed under classical logical consequence; and their belief update policies are such that logically or necessarily equivalent contents can lead to different revisions. We model both plain and conditional belief, then focus on dynamic belief revision. The key idea we exploit to achieve non-omniscience focuses on topic- or subject matter-sensitivity: a feature of belief states which is gaining growing attention in the recent literature.

Keywords

belief revisiondynamic epistemic logiclogical omniscienceaboutnesssubject matterhyperintensionalitycompletenessaxiomatization

MSC classification

Primary: 03B42: Logics of knowledge and belief (including belief change)

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , September 2021 , pp. 766 - 811
Check for updates
Copyright
© Association for Symbolic Logic, 2020

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alchourrón, C., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: partial meet functions for contraction and revision. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 510–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asheim, G. & Sövik, Y. (2005). Preference-based belief operators. Mathematical Social Sciences, 50, 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balbiani, P., Fernández-Duque, D., & Lorini, E. (2019). The dynamics of epistemic attitudes in resource-bounded agents. Studia Logica, 107, 457–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltag, A., Bezhanishvili, N., Özgün, A., & Smets, S. (2016). Justified belief and the topology of evidence. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Workshop on Logic, Language, Information and Computation (WOLLIC 2016), pp. 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltag, A. & Renne, B. (2016). Dynamic epistemic logic. In Zalta, E. N., editor. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Baltag, A. & Smets, S. (2008). A qualitative theory of dynamic interactive belief revision. Texts in Logic and Games, 3, 9–58.Google Scholar
Berto, F. (2018). Aboutness in imagination. Philosophical Studies, 175, 1871–1886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berto, F., (2019). Simple hyperintensional belief revision. Erkenntnis, 84, 559–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berto, F. & Hawke, P. (2018). Knowability Relative to Information. Mind, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., & Venema, Y. (2001).Modal Logic Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 53. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Board, O. (2004). Dynamic interactive epistemology. Games and Economic Behaviour, 49, 49–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chellas, B. F. (1980). Modal logic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. (1995). Reasoning About Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fagin, R. & Halpern, J. Y. (1987). Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 34, 39–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K. (1986). Analytic implication. Notre Dame Journal Formal Logic, 27, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, K., (2016). Angellic content. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 45, 199–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbay, D. (1985). Theoretical Foundations for Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Giordani, A. (2019). Axiomatizing the logic of imagination. Studia Logica, 107, 639–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goranko, V. & Passy, S. (1992). Using the universal modality: gains and questions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2, 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, J. Y. (2001). Alternative semantics for unawareness. Games and Economic Behavior, 37, 321–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawke, P. (2018). Theories of aboutness. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96, 697–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief. An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Holliday, W. & Icard, T. (2010). Moorean phenomena in epistemic logic. In Beklemishev, L., Goranko, V., and Shehtman, V. B., editors. Advances in Modal Logic, Vol. 8. College Publications, pp. 178–199.Google Scholar
Jago, M. (2007). Hintikka and Cresswell on logical omniscience. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 15, 325–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konolige, K. (1986). What awareness isn’t: a sentential view of implicit and explicit belief. In Halpern, J. Y., editor. Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 241–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraus, S., Lehmann, D., & Magidor, M. (1990). Nonmonotonic reasoning, preferential models and cumulative logics. Artificial Intelligence, 44, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitgeb, H. & Segerberg, K. (2005). Dynamic doxastic logic: Why, how, and where to? Synthese, 155, 167–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindström, S. & Rabinowicz, W. (1999). DDL unlimited: Dynamic doxastic logic for introspective agents. Erkenntnis, 50, 353–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, F. (2008). Changing for the Better: Preference Dynamics and Agent Diversity. Ph.D. Thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Meyer, J. (2001). Epistemic logic. In Goble, L., editor. The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, pp. 182–202.Google Scholar
Özgün, A. (2017). Evidence in Epistemic Logic: A Topological Perspective. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Amsterdam & Université de Lorraine.Google Scholar
Pacuit, E. (2017). Neighbourhood Semantics for Modal Logic. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, D. (1970). Advice on modal logic. Lambert, K., editor. Philosophical Problems in Logic. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel, pp. 143–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segerberg, K. (1995). Belief revision from the point of view of doxastic logic. Bulletin of the IGPL, 3, 535–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, S. & Solaki, A. (2018). The effort of reasoning: Modelling the inference steps of boundedly rational agents. In Moss, L. S., de Queiroz, R., and Martinez, M., editors. Logic, Language, Information, and Computation. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Solaki, A. (2017). Steps out of Logical Omniscience. Master’s Thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Spohn, W. (1988). Ordinal conditional functions: a dynamic theory of epistemic states. Hrper, L., and Skyrms, B., editors. Causation in Decision, Belief Change, and Statistics, Vol. 2. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer, pp. 105–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. (2007). Dynamic logic for belief revision. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17, 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J., (2011). Logical Dynamics of Information and Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J., Fernández-Duque, D., & Pacuit, E. (2012). Evidence logic: a new look at neighborhood structures. Advances in Modal Logic, Vol. 9. College Publications, pp. 97–118.Google Scholar
van Benthem, J., Fernández-Duque, D., & Pacuit, E., (2014). Evidence and plausibility in neighborhood structures. Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 165, 106–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. & Liu, F. (2007). Dynamic logic of preference upgrade. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17, 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. & Pacuit, E. (2011). Dynamic logics of evidence-based beliefs. Studia Logica, 99(1), 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ditmarsch, H. (2005). Prolegomena to dynamic logic for belief revision. Synthese, 147, 229–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
Velázquez-Quesada, F. R. (2009). Inference and update. Synthese, 169, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velázquez-Quesada, F. R., (2011). Small steps in dynamics of information. Ph.D. Thesis, ILLC, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Velázquez-Quesada, F. R., (2013). Public announcements for non-omniscient agents. In: Lodaya, K., editor. Logic and Its Applications. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, pp. 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velázquez-Quesada, F. R., (2014). Dynamic epistemic logic for implicit and explicit beliefs. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 23, 107–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wansing, H. (2017). Remarks on the logic of imagination. a step towards understanding doxastic control through imagination. Synthese, 194, 2843–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yablo, S. (2014). Aboutness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Yalcin, S. (2018). Belief as question-sensitive. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97, 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar