scholarly journals Limits in the Revision Theory

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-35 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catrin Campbell-Moore
Keyword(s):  
Nature ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 534 (7609) ◽  
pp. 732-732
Author(s):  
Blaize M. Kaye
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrés Perea

In this paper we explore game-theoretic reasoning in dynamic games within the framework of belief revision theory. More precisely, we focus on the forward induction concept of ‘common strong belief in rationality’ (Battigalli and Siniscalchi (2002) and the backward induction concept of ‘common belief in future rationality’ (Baltag et al. 2009; Perea 2014). For both concepts we investigate whether the entire collection of selected belief revision policies for a player can be characterized by a unique plausibility ordering. We find that this is indeed possible for ‘common strong belief in rationality’, whereas this may be impossible in some games for ‘common belief in future rationality’.


1996 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 727
Author(s):  
Vann McGee ◽  
Anil Gupta ◽  
Nuel Belnap

2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catrin Campbell-Moore ◽  
Leon Horsten ◽  
Hannes Leitgeb

Author(s):  
Ahmed Zahaf ◽  
Mimoun Malki

The alignment of ontologies is the backbone of semantic interoperability. It facilitates the import of data from an ontology to another, translating queries between them or merging ontologies in a global one. However, these services cannot be guaranteed throughout the life cycle of the ontology. The problem is that the evolution of mapped ontologies may be affected and make obsolete the relationship of the mapping. Inspired by belief revision theory, the authors identify and formalize the constraints and requirements of the alignment evolution problem. Then they give an orchestration of designed operations to resolve the problem. The satisfaction of these constraints and requirements is discussed for each operation showing its strengths and weaknesses. Finally, the authors conduct an experimental process with the objective to show the limits of alignment evolution methods and ontology matching tools when dealing with alignment evolution problem highlighting the emergency to invest in dedicated methods.


2010 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 247-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Audun Stolpe
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 642-664 ◽  
Author(s):  
LEON HORSTEN ◽  
GRAHAM E. LEIGH ◽  
HANNES LEITGEB ◽  
PHILIP WELCH

AbstractThis article explores ways in which the Revision Theory of Truth can be expressed in the object language. In particular, we investigate the extent to which semantic deficiency, stable truth, and nearly stable truth can be so expressed, and we study different axiomatic systems for the Revision Theory of Truth.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document