David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Studia Logica 59 (1):29-32 (1997)
This article is oriented toward the use of modality in artificial intelligence (AI). An agent must reason about what it or other agents know, believe, want, intend or owe. Referentially opaque modalities are needed and must be formalized correctly. Unfortunately, modal logics seem too limited for many important purposes. This article contains examples of uses of modality for which modal logic seems inadequate.I have no proof that modal logic is inadequate, so I hope modal logicians will take the examples as challenges.
|Keywords||Philosophy Logic Mathematical Logic and Foundations Computational Linguistics|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Tapio Korte, Ari Maunu & Tuomo Aho (2009). Modal Logic From Kant to Possible Worlds Semantics. In Leila Haaparanta (ed.), The Development of Modern Logic. Oxford University Press.
Charles S. Chihara (1998). The Worlds of Possibility: Modal Realism and the Semantics of Modal Logic. Oxford University Press.
Brian F. Chellas (1980). Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Leonard Linsky (1971). Reference and Modality. London,Oxford University Press.
Torben Braüner (2002). Modal Logic, Truth, and the Master Modality. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (4):359-386.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #70,724 of 1,696,303 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #77,991 of 1,696,303 )
How can I increase my downloads?