Propositional dynamic logic as a logic of knowledge update and belief revision

Abstract

This talk shows how propositional dynamic logic (PDL) can be interpreted as a logic for multi-agent knowledge update and belief revision, or as a logic of preference change, if the basic relations are read as preferences instead of plausibilities. Our point of departure is the logic of communication and change (LCC) of [9]. Like LCC, our logic uses PDL as a base epistemic language. Unlike LCC, we start out from agent plausibilities, add their converses, and build knowledge and belief operators from these with the PDL constructs. We extend the update mechanism of LCC to an update mechanism that handles belief change as relation substitution, and we show that the update part of this logic is more expressive than either that of LCC or that of epistemic/doxastic PDL with a belief change modality. Next, we show that the properties of knowledge and belief are preserved under any update, unlike in LCC. We prove completeness of the logic and give examples of its use. If there is time, we will also look at the preference interpretation of the system, and at preference change scenarios that can be modelled with it.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,497

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
67 (#310,417)

6 months
67 (#85,871)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jan Van Eijck
University of Amsterdam

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Two modellings for theory change.Adam Grove - 1988 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 17 (2):157-170.
Dynamic logic for belief revision.Johan van Benthem - 2007 - Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 17 (2):129-155.

Add more references