<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van De Putte, Frederik</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prime implicates and relevant belief revision</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Logic and Computation</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2013</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">23</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">109–119</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This article discusses Parikhs axiom of relevance in belief revision, and recalls some results from Kourousias and Makinson (2007, J. Symbolic Logic, &lt;strong&gt;72&lt;/strong&gt;, 9941002) in this context. The crucial distinction is emphasized between the uniqueness of the finest splitting of K and the fact that K has several normal forms associated with that finest splitting. The main new result of this article is a new proof for the theorem that the set of prime implicates of K is a normal form for the finest splitting of K. It is explained how this proof avoids a mistake in an earlier proof from Wu and Zhang (2010, Knowledge-Based Syst., &lt;strong&gt;23&lt;/strong&gt;, 7076). As a corollary, relevance can be re-defined without reference to the finest splitting, using the notion of path-relevance from Makinson (2009, J. Appl. Logic, &lt;strong&gt;7&lt;/strong&gt;, 377387). Finally, a weak yet sufficient condition for irrelevance is presented.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>