Interpolation properties of action logic: Lazy-formalization to the frame problem

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

Volumn 2424, Issue , 2002, Pages 357-368

  Zhang, Dongmo ^a   Foo, Norman ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; INTERPOLATION; RECONFIGURABLE HARDWARE;

ACTION DESCRIPTIONS; ACTION LOGIC; FRAME PROBLEMS; INTERPOLATION PROPERTIES; META-THEORY; NORMAL FORM; REASONING ABOUT ACTIONS;

COMPUTER CIRCUITS;

EID: 77952151300     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. A. Baker, Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of situation calculus, Artificial Intelligence, 49:5-23, 1991.
2. M. A. Castilho, O. Gasquet and A. Herzig, Formalizing action and change in modal logic I: the frame problem, J. of Logic and Computations, 701-735(9), 1999.
3. C.C. Chang and H. J. Keisler, Model Theory, North Holland, 1973.
4. N. Foo, D. Zhang,Y. Zhang, S. Chopra and B. Vo, Encoding solutions of the frame problem in dynamic logic. T. Eiter, W. Faber, and M. Truszczynski eds., Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR'01), LNAI 2173, Springer, 240-253.
5. M. Gelfond and V. Lifschitz, Action languages, Electronic Transactions on AI, 16(3), 1998.
6. G. De Giacomo and M. Lenzerini, PDL-based framework for reasoning about actions, In M. Gori and G. Soda (Eds.), Topics in Artificial Intelligence, LNAI 992, Springer, 1995, 103-114.
7. M. L. Ginsberg and D. E. Smith, Reasoning about action I: a possible worlds approach, Artificial Intelligence, 35(1988), 165-195.
8. R. Goldblatt, Logics of Time and Computation, Center for the Study of Language and Information Lecture Notes 7, Stanford Univ. Press, 1987.
9. S. Hanks and D. McDermott, Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection, Artificial Intelligence, 33(3): 379-412, 1987.
10. V. Lifschitz, Frames in the space of situations, Artificial Intelligence, 46:365-376,1990.
11. F. Lin and Y. Shoham, Provably correct theories of action, AAAI-91, 349-354, 1991.
12. G. Kartha, Soundness and completeness theorems for three formalization of action, IJCAI-93, 724-729, 1993.
13. G. Kartha: On the range of applicability of Baker's approach to the frame problem. AAAI-96,664-669, 1996.
14. L. Maksimova, Amalgamation and interpolation in normal modal logics, Studia Logica, L(3/4), 457-471, 1991.
15. J. X. Madarász, The Craig interpolation theorem in multi-modal logics, Bulletin of the Section of Logic, 3(24), 147-151, 1995.
16. M. Marx, Interpolation in Modal Logic, LNCS 1548, 154-163, 1999.
17. E. Pednault, ADL: Exploring the middle ground between STRIPS and the situation calculus, KR'89, 1989, 324-332.
18. F. Pirri and R. Reiter, Some contributions to the metatheory of the situation calculus.J.ACM, 3(46),325-361, 1999.
19. H. Prendinger, and G. Schurz, Reasoning about action and change:Adynamic logic approach, J. of Logic, Language, and Information, 5:209-245,1996.
20. R. Reiter, The frame problem in the situation calculus: a simple solution (sometimes) and a completeness result for goal regression, In V. Lifschitz editor, Artificial Intelligence and Mathematical Theory of Computation, Academic Press, 359-380, 1991.
21. M. Shanahan, Solving the frame problem: a mathematical investigation of the common sense law of inertia, The MIT Press, 1997.
22. D. Zhang and N. Foo, EPDL: a logic for causal reasoning, IJCAI-01, 131-136, 2001.
23. D. Zhang and S. Chopra, Consistency of action descriptions, in: Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Nonmonotonic Reasoning, Action, and Change (NRAC'01), 78-85, 2001.