David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Logic, Language and Information 5 (2):209-245 (1996)
Reasoning about change is a central issue in research on human and robot planning. We study an approach to reasoning about action and change in a dynamic logic setting and provide a solution to problems which are related to the Frame problem. Unlike most work on the frame problem the logic described in this paper is monotonic. It (implicitly) allows for the occurrence of actions of multiple agents by introducing non-stationary notions of waiting and test. The need to state a large number of frame axioms is alleviated by introducing a concept of chronological preservation to dynamic logic. As a side effect, this concept permits the encoding of temporal properties in a natural way. We compare the relative merits of our approach and non-monotonic approaches as regards different aspects of the frame problem. Technically, we show that the resulting extended systems of propositional dynamic logic preserve (weak) completeness, finite model property and decidability.
|Keywords||propositional dynamic logic frame problem Yale Shooting Problem planning multiagent domains the ‘any’ action scoped non-monotonic reasoning temporal properties|
|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
Jesse Hughes, Peter Kroes & Sjoerd Zwart (2007). A Semantics for Means-End Relations. Synthese 158 (2):207 - 231.
Dongmo Zhang & Norman Foo (2005). Frame Problem in Dynamic Logic. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 15 (2):215-239.
Jesse Hughes, Albert Esterline & Bahram Kimiaghalam (2006). Means-End Relations and a Measure of Efficacy. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 15 (1-2):83-108.
Carsten Lutz & Dirk Walther (2005). PDL with Negation of Atomic Programs. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 15 (2):189-213.
Similar books and articles
Jelle Gerbrandy & Willem Groeneveld (1997). Reasoning About Information Change. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 6 (2):147-169.
Martin Stokhof & Jan van Eijck (2006). The Gamut of Dynamic Logics. In Dov Gabbay & John Woods (eds.), The Handbook of the History of Logic. Volume 6: Logic and Modalities in the Twentieth Century. Elsevier 499-600.
Nicholas Asher (1994). Problems with Persistence. Topoi 13 (1):37-49.
Ivan José Varzinczak (2010). On Action Theory Change. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37 (1):189-246.
Mark Sprevak (2005). The Frame Problem and the Treatment of Prediction. In L. Magnani & R. Dossena (eds.), Computing, Philosophy and Cognition. 4--349.
Rafal Urbaniak (2010). Capturing Dynamic Conceptual Frames. Logic Journal of the Igpl 18 (3):430-455.
Chitta Baral & Nam Tran (2005). Representation and Reasoning About Evolutions of the World in the Context of Reasoning About Actions. Studia Logica 79 (1):33 - 46.
John L. Pollock (1997). Reasoning About Change and Persistence: A Solution to the Frame Problem. Noûs 31 (2):143-169.
Ivan Varzinczak (2006). What Is a Good Domain Description? Evaluating and Revising Action Theories in Dynamic Logic. Dissertation, Université Paul Sabatier
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads27 ( #112,693 of 1,725,833 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #53,200 of 1,725,833 )
How can I increase my downloads?