IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cda/wpaper/209.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Four Logics for Minimal Belief Revision

Author

Listed:
  • Giacomo Bonanno

    (Department of Economics, University of California Davis)

Abstract

It is natural to think of belief revision as the interaction of belief and information over time. Thus branching-time temporal logic seems a natural setting for a theory of belief revision. We propose a logic based on three modal operators: a belief operator, an information operator and a next-time operator. Four logics of increasing strength are proposed. The first is a logic that captures the most basic notion of minimal belief revision. The second characterizes the qualitative content of Bayes' rule. The third provides an axiomatization of the AGM theory of belief revision and the fourth provides a characterization of the notion of plausibility ordering of the set of possible worlds.

Suggested Citation

  • Giacomo Bonanno, 2007. "Four Logics for Minimal Belief Revision," Working Papers 209, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:cda:wpaper:209
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.dss.ucdavis.edu/files/KtuMZr8q3ZT3AjYHSFuEK86M/07-6.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giacomo Bonanno, 2004. "A simple modal logic for belief revision," Working Papers 164, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    2. Board, Oliver, 2004. "Dynamic interactive epistemology," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 49-80, October.
    3. Giacomo Bonanno, 2004. "A simple modal logic for belief revision," Working Papers 45, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giacomo Bonanno, 2007. "Temporal Belief Revision Rationalized by Plausibility Orderings," Working Papers 161, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Antoine Billot & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud & Bernard Walliser, 2008. "Multiplayer belief revision," Post-Print halshs-00344461, HAL.
    2. Giacomo Bonanno, 2007. "Four Logics for Minimal Belief Revision," Working Papers 76, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    3. Billot, Antoine & Vergnaud, Jean-Christophe & Walliser, Bernard, 2015. "Multiagent belief revision," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 47-57.
    4. Giacomo Bonanno, 2005. "Temporal interaction of information and belief," Working Papers 141, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    5. Giacomo Bonanno, 2005. "Temporal interaction of information and belief," Working Papers 541, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    6. Giacomo Bonanno, 2006. "Axiomatization of the AGM theory of belief revision in a temporal logic," Working Papers 254, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    7. Giacomo Bonanno & Cédric Dégremont, 2013. "Logic and Game Theory," Working Papers 11, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    8. Giacomo Bonanno, 2013. "Counterfactuals and the Prisoner?s Dilemma," Working Papers 6, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    9. Guilhem Lecouteux, 2018. "Bayesian game theorists and non-Bayesian players," The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(6), pages 1420-1454, November.
    10. Giacomo Bonanno, 2011. "Reasoning about strategies and rational play in dynamic games," Working Papers 9, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    11. Giacomo Bonanno, 2011. "Reasoning about strategies and rational play in dynamic games," Working Papers 1111, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    12. Giacomo Bonanno, 2012. "Epistemic foundations of game theory," Working Papers 70, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    13. Amedeo Fossati, 2014. "The Luigi Einaudi vs. Mauro Fasiani epistemological debate (1938-1943): the end of the italian tradition in Public Finance," STUDI ECONOMICI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(113), pages 5-33.
    14. Áron Tóbiás, 2021. "Meet meets join: the interaction between pooled and common knowledge," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 50(4), pages 989-1019, December.
    15. Giacomo Bonanno, 2004. "A simple modal logic for belief revision," Working Papers 45, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    16. Johan Van Benthem & Eric Pacuit & Olivier Roy, 2011. "Toward a Theory of Play: A Logical Perspective on Games and Interaction," Games, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-35, February.
    17. Giacomo Bonanno, 2013. "Counterfactuals and the Prisoner?s Dilemma," Working Papers 137, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    18. Oliver Board, 2002. "Algorithmic Characterization of Rationalizability in Extensive Form Games," Working Paper 244, Department of Economics, University of Pittsburgh, revised Jan 2002.
    19. Giacomo Bonanno & Cédric Dégremont, 2013. "Logic and Game Theory," Working Papers 134, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    20. Giacomo Bonanno, 2004. "A simple modal logic for belief revision," Working Papers 164, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cda:wpaper:209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Letters and Science IT Services Unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/educdus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.