Comparative Possibility in Set Contraction

Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (1):53-75 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In a recent article, Zhang and Foo generalized the AGM postulates for contraction to include infinite epistemic input. The new type of belief change is called set contraction. Zhang and Foo also introduced a constructive model for set contraction, called nicely ordered partition, as a generalization of epistemic entrenchment. It was shown however that the functions induced from nicely ordered partitions do not quite match the postulates for set contraction. The mismatch was fixed with the introduction of an extra condition called the limit postulate. The limit postulate establishes a connection between contraction by infinite epistemic input and contraction by finite epistemic input (reducing the former to the latter) and it is appealing both on mathematical and on conceptual grounds. It is debatable however whether the limit postulate can be adopted as a general feature of rationality in set contraction. Instead we propose that the limit postulate is viewed as a condition characterizing an important special case of set contraction functions. With this reading in mind, in this article we introduce an alternative generalization of epistemic entrenchment, based on the notion of comparative possibility. We prove that the functions induced from comparative possibility preorders precisely match those satisfying the postulates for set contraction (without the limit postulate). The relationship between comparative possibility and epistemic entrenchment is also investigated. Finally, we formulate necessary and sufficient conditions under which the functions induced from comparative possibility preorders coincide with the special class of contraction functions characterized by the limit postulate

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,779

External links

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

Through your library

Similar books and articles

A Brief Note About Rott Contraction.E. Fermé & R. Rodriguez - 1998 - Logic Journal of the IGPL 6 (6):835-842.
On the logic of theory change: Contraction without recovery. [REVIEW]Eduardo L. Fermé - 1998 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 7 (2):127-137.
Systematic withdrawal.Thomas Meyer, Johannes Heidema, Willem Labuschagne & Louise Leenen - 2002 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (5):415-443.
Threshold-Based Belief Change.Eric Raidl & Hans Rott - 2023 - Australasian Journal of Logic 20 (3):429-477.
Eligible Contraction.John Cantwell - 2003 - Studia Logica 73 (2):167-182.
Levi Contractions and AGM Contractions: A Comparison.Sven Ove Hansson & Erik J. Olsson - 1995 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 36 (1):103-119.

Analytics

Added to PP
2012-01-21

Downloads
28 (#556,056)

6 months
3 (#1,206,053)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Counterfactuals.David K. Lewis - 1973 - Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 36 (3):602-605.
Counterfactuals.David Lewis - 1973 - Philosophy of Science 42 (3):341-344.
Knowledge in Flux.Henry E. Kyburg & Peter Gardenfors - 1993 - Noûs 27 (4):519-521.

View all 10 references / Add more references