Modelling of AGM-style doxastic operations in three-valued setting

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.553

Keywords:

modeling of reasoning, belief revision, cognitive actions, doxastic operators, AGM, three-valued logic

Abstract

The goal of our work is to show how a theoretical approach to modeling of reasoning can be analyzed to identify controversial issues that reveal prospects for further research. We will consider one of the basic approaches to modeling of reasoning based on the concept of belief revision AGM, which is viewed as classical because it formulates the basic concepts of belief, introduces the main ways of representing beliefs, cognitive actions, systems of postulates for cognitive actions and the basic principles for constructing epistemic systems. However, this conceptual foundation raises many controversial issues that require further research, such as the problem of purity of the doxastic operations, the problem of primacy of the doxastic operations and the problem of connection between the doxastic operations. To find a possible solution to these controversial points, we will attempt to model the main ideas of AGM within the framework of standard consistent, and complete logic \L{}3. The basic principle of our translation is the scheme for constructing an epistemic theory proposed by G\"ardenfors, which is considered the basis of AGM. We use a strict three-valued logic formalism to constrain the functioning of doxastic operators and to test how they will function when trying to express the corresponding AGM postulates in a given system. It will allow us to approach the solution of the classical AGM problems or at least to present them from a different perspective. We consider the fundamental possibility of obtaining other doxastic operators in this way and also show how we can implement the minimality criterion for the contraction operator by combining several theorems of three-valued logic. The presented method of translating an informal conceptual scheme into formal logic is convenient for teaching students the basics of modeling and makes it possible to demonstrate the relationships and limitations of the modeled objects and processes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract views: 111 / PDF views: 69

References

Alchourrón, C.E., Gärdenfors, P. and Makinson, D., 1985. On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2), p.510–530. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/2274239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2274239

Baltag, A., Fiutek, V. and Smets, S., 2016. Beliefs and Evidence in Justification Models. In: L. Beklemishev, S. Demri and A. Máté, eds. Advances in Modal Logic. College Publications, vol. 11, pp.156–176.

Devlin, K., 2009. Modeling Real Reasoning. In: G. Sommaruga, ed. Formal Theories of Information: From Shannon to Semantic Information Theory and General Concepts of Information [Muenchenwiler Seminar (Switzerland), May 2009]. Springer, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5363, pp.234–252. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00659-3_9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-00659-3_9

Fermé, E.L. and Hansson, S.O., 2011. AGM 25 Years - Twenty-Five Years of Research in Belief Change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 40(2), pp.295–331. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9171-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-011-9171-9

Gärdenfors, P., 1988. Knowledge in Flux: Modeling the Dynamics of Epistemic States. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Gouvea, J. and Passmore, C., 2017. ‘Models of’ versus ‘Models for’: Toward an agent-based conception of modeling in the science classroom. Science & Education, 26(1), pp.49–63. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9884-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9884-4

Hansson, S.O., 1998. A Textbook of Belief Dynamics, Applied Logic Series, vol. 11/2. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0814-3

Hansson, S.O., 2003. Ten Philosophical Problems in Belief Revision. Journal of Logic and Computation, 13(1), pp.37–49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/13.1.37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/13.1.37

Hintikka, J., 2005. Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions. College Publications.

Levi, I., 1991. The Fixation of Belief and its Undoing: Changing Beliefs through Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663819. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663819

Makinson, D., 1987. On the status of the postulate of recovery in the logic of theory change. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 16(4), pp.383–394. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00431184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00431184

Segerberg, K., 1995. Belief Revision From the Point of View of Doxastic Logic. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 3(4), pp.535–553. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/3.4.535. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jigpal/3.4.535

Shramko, Y., 1999. Doxastic actions and doxastic commitments: belief revision as pure modal logic. Smirnov’s Readings; 2nd International Conference. Moscow, pp.90–92.

Shramko, Y. and Wansing, H., 2006. Hyper-Contradictions, Generalized Truth Values and Logics of Truth and Falsehood. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 15(4), pp.403–424. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-006-9015-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10849-006-9015-0

Stalnaker, R.C., 2019. Knowledge and Conditionals: Essays on the Structure of Inquiry. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198810346.001.0001

Wansing, H. and Shramko, Y., 2008. Suszko’s Thesis, Inferential Many-valuedness, and the Notion of a Logical System. Studia Logica, 88(3), pp.405–429. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-008-9111-z. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11225-008-9111-z

Wright, G.H. von, 1951. An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland Pub. Co.

Downloads

Published

2023-03-21

Issue

Section

Competency-Based Education Platforms

How to Cite

Kozachenko, N.P., 2023. Modelling of AGM-style doxastic operations in three-valued setting. CTE Workshop Proceedings [Online], 10, pp.326–345. Available from: https://doi.org/10.55056/cte.553 [Accessed 14 June 2024].
Received 2022-10-11
Accepted 2022-12-22
Published 2023-03-21

Similar Articles

1-10 of 78

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.

Most read articles by the same author(s)