Measuring inconsistency in probabilistic logic: rationality postulates and Dutch book interpretation

&
Artificial Intelligence 227 (C):140-164 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1016/j.artint.2015.06.006

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,682

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

Dutch books and agent rationality.Daniel Silber - 1999 - Theory and Decision 47 (3):247-266.
Hidden Assumptions in the Dutch Book Argument.C. Waidacher - 1997 - Theory and Decision 43 (3):293-312.
XIII—Dutch Book and Accuracy Theorems.Anna Mahtani - 2021 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 120 (3):309-327.
Dutch Books, Coherence, and Logical Consistency.Anna Mahtani - 2015 - Noûs 49 (3):522-537.
Why be coherent?Glauber De Bona & Julia Staffel - 2018 - Analysis 78 (3):405-415.
Nonmonotonic Inconsistency.Charles B. Cross - 2003 - Artificial Intelligence 149 (2):161-178.
Rational Inconsistency and Reasoning.Bryson Brown - 1992 - Informal Logic 14 (1).
Measuring Inconsistency in Generalized Propositional Logic.John Grant - 2020 - Logica Universalis 14 (3):331-356.
Arguments for–or against–Probabilism?Alan Hájek - 2008 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):793-819.
Towards classifying propositional probabilistic logics.Glauber De Bona, Fabio Gagliardi Cozman & Marcelo Finger - 2014 - Journal of Applied Logic 12 (3):349-368.
Modal logic S4 as a paraconsistent logic with a topological semantics.Marcelo E. Coniglio & Leonardo Prieto-Sanabria - 2017 - In Caleiro Carlos, Dionisio Francisco, Gouveia Paula, Mateus Paulo & Rasga João (eds.), Logic and Computation: Essays in Honour of Amilcar Sernadas. College Publications. pp. 171-196.
A Dutch book for group decision-making?Luc Bovens & Wlodek Rabinowicz - 2009 - In Benedikt Löwe, Eric Pacuit & Jan-Willem Romeijn (eds.), Foundations of the Formal Sciences Vi: Probabilistic Reasoning and Reasoning With Probabilities. Studies in Logic. London UK: College Publication. pp. 91-101.
Logics of formal inconsistency arising from systems of fuzzy logic.Marcelo E. Coniglio, Francesc Esteva & Lluís Godo - 2014 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 22 (6):880-904.
Inconsistency and interpretation.Lisa Bortolotti - 2003 - Philosophical Explorations 6 (2):109-123.
Two Forms of Inconsistency in Quantum Foundations.Jer Steeger & Nicholas Teh - 2021 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 72 (4):1083-1110.

Analytics

Added to PP
2020-12-22

Downloads
12 (#1,105,107)

6 months
8 (#405,070)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Why be coherent?Glauber De Bona & Julia Staffel - 2018 - Analysis 78 (3):405-415.
Graded Incoherence for Accuracy-Firsters.Glauber De Bona & Julia Staffel - 2017 - Philosophy of Science 84 (2):189-213.
Should I pretend I'm perfect?Julia Staffel - 2017 - Res Philosophica 94 (2):301-324.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

A theory of diagnosis from first principles.Raymond Reiter - 1987 - Artificial Intelligence 32 (1):57-95.
Coherence and the axioms of confirmation.Abner Shimony - 1955 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 20 (1):1-28.
Fair bets and inductive probabilities.John G. Kemeny - 1955 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 20 (3):263-273.
Probabilistic logic.Nils J. Nilsson - 1986 - Artificial Intelligence 28 (1):71-87.

View all 15 references / Add more references