Strategic deontic temporal logic as a reduction to ATL, with an application to Chisholm's scenario

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 4048 LNAI, Issue , 2006, Pages 53-68

  Broersen, Jan ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCIENCE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

ALTERNATING TIME TEMPORAL LOGIC (ATL); CHISHOLM'S SCENARIO; DEONTIC DETACHMENT;

FORMAL LOGIC;

EID: 33746368730     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/11786849_7     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Rajeev Alur, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Orna Kupferman. Alternating-time temporal logic. In FOCS '97: Proceedings of the 38th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS '97), pages 100-109. IEEE Computer Society, 1997.
2. Rajeev Alur, Thomas A. Henzinger, and Orna Kupferman. Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 49(5):672-713, 2002.
3. A.R. Anderson. A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind, 67:100-103, 1958.
4. J.M. Broersen, F. Dignum, V. Dignum, and J.-J Meyer. Designing a deontic logic of deadlines. In A. Lomuscio and D. Nute, editors, Proceedings 7th International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON'04), volume 3065 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 43-56. Springer, 2004. DOI: 10.1007/b98159.
5. J.M. Broersen, A. Herzig, and N. Troquard. From coalition logic to stit. In Proceedings LCMAS 2005, Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science. Elsevier, 2005.
6. J.M. Broersen and L.W.N. van der Torre. Semantic analysis of chisholm's paradox. In K. Verbeeck, K. Tuyls, A. Nowe, B. Manderick, and B. Kuijpers, editors, Proceedings of the 17th Belgium-Netherlands Artificial Intelligence Conference, pages 28-34, 2005.
7. R.M. Chisholm. Contrary-to-duty imperatives and deontic logic. Analysis, 24:33-36, 1963.
8. P.R. Cohen and H.J. Levesque. Intention is choice with commitment. Artificial Intelligence, 42(3):213-261, 1990.
9. F. Dignum and R. Kuiper. Obligations and dense time for specifying deadlines. In Proceedings of thirty-First HICSS, Hawaii, 1998.
10. J.A. van Eck. A system of temporally relative modal and deontic predicate logic and its philosophical applications. Logique et Analyse, 100:339-381, 1982.
11. J.F. Horty. Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, 2001.
12. U. Hustadt and B. Konev. Trp++ 2.0: A temporal resolution prover. In F. Baader, editor, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Automated Deduction (CADE-19), volume 2741 of Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pages 274-278. Springer, 2003.
13. S. Lindström and W. Rabinowicz. Unlimited doxastic logic for introspective agents. Erkenntnis, 50:353-385, 1999.
14. B. Loewer andM. Belzer. Dyadic deontic detachment. Synthese, 54:295-318, 1983.
15. J.-J.Ch. Meyer. A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29:109-136, 1988.
16. H. Prakken and M.J. Sergot. Contrary-to-duty obligations and defeasible reasoning. Studia Logica, 57:91-115, 1996.
17. F. Dignum H. Weigand V. Dignum, J.J. Meyer. Formal specification of interaction in agent societies. In 2nd Goddard Workshop on Formal Approaches to Agent-Based Systems (FAABS), Maryland, 2002.
18. G.H. von Wright. Deontic logic. Mind, 60:1-15, 1951.