Update Semantics #
@cite{veltman-1996}
In Update Semantics:
- Information states are sets of worlds (not assignments)
- Sentences update states by eliminating incompatible worlds
- "Might φ" is a TEST: passes if some φ-worlds remain
- No discourse referents (simpler than DRT/DPL)
⟦φ⟧ : State → State where State = Set World
Update Semantics state: a set of possible worlds.
Unlike DPL/DRT, no assignment component - US focuses on propositional content.
Equations
Instances For
Update function: how a sentence modifies a state.
Equations
Instances For
Conjunction: sequential update.
⟦φ ∧ ψ⟧ = ⟦ψ⟧ ∘ ⟦φ⟧
Delegates to Core.CCP.seq.
Equations
- φ.conj ψ = Semantics.Dynamic.Core.CCP.seq φ ψ
Instances For
Negation: test and possibly fail.
⟦¬φ⟧(s) = s if ⟦φ⟧(s) = ∅, else ∅
Delegates to Core.CCP.neg.
Equations
Instances For
Epistemic "might": compatibility test.
⟦might φ⟧(s) = s if ⟦φ⟧(s) ≠ ∅, else ∅
Delegates to Core.CCP.might.
Equations
Instances For
Epistemic "must": universal test.
⟦must φ⟧(s) = s if ⟦φ⟧(s) = s, else ∅
Delegates to Core.CCP.must.
Equations
Instances For
Might is a TEST: it doesn't change the state (if it passes).
Order matters for epistemic might.
"It's raining and it might not be raining" is contradictory: after learning rain, the might-not-rain test fails (no ¬rain worlds remain). But "it might not be raining and it's raining" can succeed: the might test passes on the initial state, then learning eliminates ¬rain worlds.
Requires Nontrivial W: for empty or singleton W, no state has both
p-worlds and ¬p-worlds, making the second conjunct unsatisfiable.
State s supports φ iff updating with φ doesn't change s.
s ⊨ φ iff ⟦φ⟧(s) = s
Equations
- Semantics.Dynamic.UpdateSemantics.supports s φ = (φ s = s)
Instances For
State s accepts φ iff updating with φ yields a non-empty state.
s accepts φ iff ⟦φ⟧(s) ≠ ∅
Equations
Instances For
Validity₁: updating the minimal state 0 with the premises in order yields a state that supports the conclusion.
ψ₁,...,ψₙ ⊩₁ φ iff 0[ψ₁]⋯[ψₙ] ⊨ φ
@cite{veltman-1996}, §1.2. This is the notion Veltman concentrates on: it captures the fact that default conclusions depend on exactly what information is available.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Validity₂: for every state σ, updating with the premises in order yields a state that supports the conclusion.
ψ₁,...,ψₙ ⊩₂ φ iff ∀σ, σ[ψ₁]⋯[ψₙ] ⊨ φ
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Validity₃: one cannot accept all premises without accepting the conclusion. Closest to the classical notion.
ψ₁,...,ψₙ ⊩₃ φ iff ∀σ, (σ ⊨ ψ₁ ∧ ... ∧ σ ⊨ ψₙ) → σ ⊨ φ
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Validity₂ implies validity₁: specializing σ = 0.
@cite{veltman-1996}, Proposition 1.3 (one direction, unconditional).
Validity₃ is monotonic: adding premises preserves validity.
@cite{veltman-1996}, §1.2: validity₃ is the only notion that is both left and right monotonic.