A note on Darwiche and Pearl

02/18/2002
by   Daniel Lehmann, et al.
0

It is shown that Darwiche and Pearl's postulates imply an interesting property, not noticed by the authors.

READ FULL TEXT VIEW PDF
10/06/2020

StoqMA vs. MA: the power of error reduction

StoqMA characterizes the computational hardness of stoquastic local Hami...
04/09/2020

Lecture Note on LCSSX's Lower Bounds for Non-Adaptive Distribution-free Property Testing

In this lecture note we give Liu-Chen-Servedio-Sheng-Xie's (LCSSX) lower...
09/28/2019

A Note On k-Means Probabilistic Poverty

It is proven, by example, that the version of k-means with random initia...
10/21/2019

A Note on a Unifying Proof of the Undecidability of Several Diagrammatic Properties of Term Rewriting Systems

In this note we give a simple unifying proof of the undecidability of se...
07/13/2021

Deterministic Identification Over Poisson Channels

Deterministic identification (DI) for the discrete-time Poisson channel,...
06/11/2019

Refuting Strong AI: Why Consciousness Cannot Be Algorithmic

While physicalism requires only that a conscious state depends entirely ...

1 A short remark

In [DarwPearl:AIJ], Darwiche and Pearl propose postulates for iterated revisions, noted (R*1) to (R*6) and (C1) to (C4). In particular, the postulate (C3) reads:

It will be shown that, in the presence (R*1) to (R*6), (C1) and (C3) imply:

First, a lemma.

Lemma 1

Assuming (R*1) to (R*6), if , then .

Proof: Since , . By (R*4), . Therefore .

If is satisfiable, then, since , is satisfiable and, by (R*5), and therefore .

If is not satisfiable, then, by (R*3), is not satisfiable, and is not satisfiable. By (R*1), then, .    

Lemma 2

Assuming (R*1) to (R*6), (C1) and (C3), if , then .

Proof: Suppose . By Lemma 1, . By (C1), . But, by (C3), and, by Lemma 1, .

We conclude that .    

References