A completeness proof in full DDL
Dynamic doxastic logicians — not a large community — have trodden gingerly within the area of full DDL or, as with the present author, have not trodden at all. However, the latter, after having written up the final version of , realised that the proof given in that paper for two varieties of basic DDL can be extended to cover full DDL; in fact, the «full» proof is simpler than the «basic» one. The extended proof is outlined in Section 1–3. In Section 4, the relationship to AGM is considered. Section 5 puts the importance of the proof into perspective.This note — an extended abstract rather than a full-fledged paper — should be read as an appendix to . Although some definitions are repeated here, many are not. Readers who require more detail are referred to , a copy of which they should have on hand.
Alchourrón, Carlos, Peter Gärdenfors & David Makinson. “On the logic of theory change.” The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 50 (1985), pp. 510–530.
Hansson, Bengt. “An analysis of some deontic logics.” Noûs, vol. 3 (1969), pp. 373–398.
Lewis, David. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell, 1973.
van Linder, Bernd, Wiebe van der Hoek & John-Jules Meyer. “Actions that make you change your mind.” In Knowledge and belief in philosophy and artificial intelligence, edited by Armin Laux & Heinrich Wansing, pp. 103–146. Berlin: Akademie Verlag GmbH, 1995.
Lindström, Sten & Wlodek Rabinowicz. “Extending dynamic doxastic logic: accommodating iterated beliefs and Ramsey conditionals within DDL.” In For good measure, edited by Lars Lindahl, Paul Needham & Rysiek Sliwinski, pp. 126–153. Uppsala Philosophical Studies, vol. 46, 1997.
Segerberg, Krister. “The basic dynamic doxastic logic of AGM.” In Frontiers in belif revision, edited by Marg-Anne Williams & Hans Rott, pp. 57–84. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2001.
How to Cite
Number of views and downloads: 191
Number of citations: 0