Counterfactuals

Ginsberg, Matthew L.

doi:10.1016/0004-3702(86)90067-6

Cited by 218 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

117

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We write ⊢ R Γ ⇒ ∆ in case Γ ⇒ ∆ is derivable using rules in R, and ⊢ R * for derivability using the modification of R. We denote use of additional rules by juxtaposition, e.g. GRConCut denotes derivability where Cut and Contraction (both on the left and on the right) may be used in addition to rules in G and R. The remainder of the paper establishes our main contributions, the first being soundness and completeness of the corresponding rules in presence of contraction (see Sections 4,5,6).…”

Section: Conditional Logics: Calculi and Main Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequent Systems for Lewis’ Conditional Logics

Lellmann

Pattinson

2012

Logics in Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We present unlabelled cut-free sequent calculi for Lewis' conditional logic V and extensions, in both the languages with the entrenchment connective and the strong conditional. The calculi give rise to Pspace-decision procedures, also in the language with the weak conditional. Furthermore, they are used to prove the Craig interpolation property for all the logics under consideration, and yield a Pspace-decision procedure for a recently considered hybrid version of V.

show abstract

Section: Conditional Logics: Calculi and Main Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sequent Systems for Lewis’ Conditional Logics

Lellmann

Pattinson

2012

Logics in Artificial Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar to the ideas of Winslett [57], they employ propositional circumscription [37,34] in order to express several belief-revision operators, specifically those defined by Borgida [3], Ginsberg [23], Dalal [7], Satoh [48], and Winslett [58]. The primary point of distinction between the present approach and the aforecited works is that we begin with a general framework in which a suite of diverse operators is defined (see following), whereas previous work has for the most part only addressed belief revision.…”

Section: General Approaches To Belief Changementioning

confidence: 99%

On Computing Belief Change Operations using Quantified Boolean Formulas

Delgrande

Schaub

Tompits

et al. 2004

Journal of Logic and Computation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we show how an approach to belief revision and belief contraction can be axiomatised by means of quantified Boolean formulas. Specifically, we consider the approach of belief change scenarios, a general framework that has been introduced for expressing different forms of belief change. The essential idea is that for a belief change scenario (K, R, C), the set of formulas K, representing the knowledge base, is modified so that the sets of formulas R and C are respectively true in, and consistent with the result. By restricting the form of a belief change scenario, one obtains specific belief change operators including belief revision, contraction, update, and merging. For both the general approach and for specific operators, we give a quantified Boolean formula such that satisfying truth assignments to the free variables correspond to belief change extensions in the original approach. Hence, we reduce the problem of determining the results of a belief change operation to that of satisfiability. This approach has several benefits. First, it furnishes an axiomatic specification of belief change with respect to belief change scenarios. This then leads to further insight into the belief change framework.

show abstract

“…The majority of the philosophers who have examined the semantics of counterfactual sentences have resorted to some version of Lewis' closest world approach: "C if it were A" is true, if C is true in worlds that are closest to the real world yet consistent with the counterfactual's antecedent A [Lewis 1973]. Ginsberg [1986] followed a similar strategy. Whereas the closest world approach leaves the precise specification of the closeness measure almost unconstrained, causal knowledge imposes very specific preferences as to which worlds should be considered closest to any given world.…”

Section: If a Were True Then C Would Have Been True?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Graphical Models for Probabilistic and Causal Reasoning

Pearl

1998

Quantified Representation of Uncertainty and Imprecision

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Counterfactuals

Cited by 218 publications

References 11 publications

Sequent Systems for Lewis’ Conditional Logics

Sequent Systems for Lewis’ Conditional Logics

On Computing Belief Change Operations using Quantified Boolean Formulas

Graphical Models for Probabilistic and Causal Reasoning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About