Talk:Belief revision

Page limits

The article has gone over the 32K limit... For now, it is better to leave it as is. If some section grows further, the article can be rewritten in the Wikipedia:Summary style. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry about page limits, they affect hardly any editors. Get the content right and we can figure out how best to carve it into pages. --- Charles Stewart 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I do not think this paper will grow much further in the near future, so there is probably no need to worry, at least for now. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Content to add

Some things still missing from the article:

1. belief revision and abduction (Boutilier)
2. relevance axiom (Parikh et al.)
3. compartments (Wassermann et al.)

I am pretty sure I am still missing something else... let me know if this is the case. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 11:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What about ranking theory? Spohn laid down his new approach in his book "The laws of belief", which can serve as a generalization of AGM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.228.200 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Piaget

I have removed the following from the article:

The concepts of update and revision echo Piaget's ideas of accommodation and assimilation in schema formation. Accommodation is similar to updating, in that existing structures are changed in light of new information. Assimilation is similar to revision, in that new events are incorporated into preexisting cognitive structures.

I could not find sources for it. Most importantly, from what I could find, this is incorrect. If a parallel can be established, assimilation is expansion (simple addition of new information) while accomodation is revision (addition of new information that requires reorganization of the current body of knowledge). - Liberatore(T) 19:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

First sentence?

Does the first sentence

"Belief revision is the process changing beliefs to take into account a new piece of information. "

make sense to everyone but me? I am not really sure what it is trying to say, so I don't know how to change it to make it clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMightyOrb (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 September 2006

The "of" you added was indeed in the original version of that sentence I wrote. I am happy to see that someone else agrees with me :-> (Liberatore, 2006). 11:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Enumeration of operators

Is there any reason why Hegner and Weber are not iterated like the others here in the model-based revision update section? --Juxi 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Relationship to theory revision?

What is the relationship to theory revision? Greiner[1] (pdf) suggests that belief revision and theory revision are related (last paragraph of section 1) but the relationship isn't clear.

Finally, note that, in some cases, our task can require extracting the best consistent sub-theory from a given inconsistent theory From this perspective, our work is related to "Knowledge Representation" form of theory revision, a la Gardenfors [Gar88, AGM85], Katsuno and Mendelzon [KM9l] and many others Our work differs by using the notion of expected accuracy to dictate which of the "revisions" is best

Pgr94 (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Backfire

Not sure it's relevant, as this article appears to be about a logical system, but I was surprised I couldn't immediately find a reference to the term backfire, as alluded to in the context of politics/psychology here. If this concept is related, can the article help clarify this relationship? 192.31.106.35 (talk) 18:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Early Technical Accounts

Was recently digging a little bit on early accounts of hypothetical reasoning and counter factual reasoning. It seems to me that simple reasoning can be done with some basic expansion and contraction operators in logic programming. I found the following papers dating back to 1988:

Kind of Expansion Operator (called embedded implication):

A Logic for Hypothetical Reasoning

Anthony J. Bonner, 1988

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.56.1451

Kind of Contraction Operator (no specific name):

Hypothetical Datalog: Complexity and Expressibility

by Anthony Bonner, 1988

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.47.8941

Worth citing these? Jan Burse (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belief revision. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051018054730/http://magic.it.uts.edu.au:80/systems/saten.html to http://magic.it.uts.edu.au/systems/saten.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)