DDL unlimited: Dynamic doxastic logic for introspective agents (Q1583791)

From MaRDI portal

!

This is the item page for this Wikibase entity, intended for internal use and editing purposes. Please use the normal view instead:

scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1523359
Language Label Description Also known as
default for all languages
No label defined
    English
    DDL unlimited: Dynamic doxastic logic for introspective agents
    scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1523359

      Statements

      DDL unlimited: Dynamic doxastic logic for introspective agents (English)
      0 references
      0 references
      0 references
      0 references
      3 October 2001
      0 references
      This is a paper in the logic of belief and belief change. The authors consider a liberalization of the syntax of \textit{K. Segerberg's} dynamic doxastic logic [in: H. J. Ohlbach et al. (eds.), Logic, language and reasoning, Trends Log. Stud. Log. Liber. 5, 135-147 (1999; Zbl 0957.03023)] so that the belief operator may be nested and applied also to statements of belief change correctness. The development of a Segerberg-style semantics for this language is explored, i.e., a semantics in which a doxastic state is postulated to be a so-called hypertheory, a family \({\mathbf H}\) of closed sets such that the intersection of \({\mathbf H}\) and the underlying universe belong to \({\mathbf H}\). This development is hampered by a number of unacceptable, `paradoxical' formulas emerging as valid. A remedy free of the observed shortcoming is presented. A distinction is drawn between states in which a belief is held (points of evaluation) and states about which certain things are believed (points of reference). Formulas are then evaluated at pairs \((x,y)\), where \(x\) is the point of evaluation and \(y\) the point of reference. In this two-dimensional semantics a distinction can be made between weak and strong validity. Certain formulas problematic within the one-dimensional semantics receive a new, unproblematic reading. Moreover, other problems can be avoided by assuming that various introspection principles are only weakly valid. The authors do not consider metalogical properties of their two-dimensional dynamic logic.
      0 references
      two-dimensional logic
      0 references
      logic of belief
      0 references
      belief change
      0 references
      semantics
      0 references
      doxastic state
      0 references
      hypertheory
      0 references
      dynamic logic
      0 references

      Identifiers