Przymusinska, “The stable model semantics for logic programming”, in Proc. Konolige, “A resolution method for quantified modal logics of knowledge and Belief”, in J. Gärdenfors, Knowledge in Flux, MIT Press, Bradford Books, Cambridge, MA.Ĭ. , Temporal Logics and their Applications, Academic Press, N.Y. Gabbay, Semantical investigations in Heyting’s intuituionistic logic, Reidel, Dordrecht.Ī. Stavi, “On the temporal analysis of fairness”, Proc. Font, “Modality and possibility in some intuitionistic modal logics”, Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 27, 533–546.ĭ. Floyd, “Assigning meaning to programs”, Proc. Fitch, “Intuitionistic modal logic with quantifiers”, Portugalia Mathematixca 7, 113–118. Ladner, “Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs”, J. Fitting, Proof Methods for Modal and Intuitionistic Logics, D. Halpern, “Belief, awareness, and limited reasoning”, Art. Ewald, “Intuitionistic tense and modal logic”, J.S.L. Etherington, Reasoning with Incomplete Information, Pitman, London, 1988. Etherington, “Relating default logic and circumscription”, Proc. Engeler, “On the solvability of algorithmic problems”, Logic Colloquium’73 (H. Engeler, Languages: Automata and Structures, Markham, Chicago.Į. Engeler, “Algorithmic properties of structures”, Math. Elkin, “Logical characterization of nonmonotonic TMS’s”, Math. Dozen, “Models for stonger normal intuitionistic modal logics”, Studia Logica 44, 39–70.Ĭ. Doyle, “A truth maintenance system”, Art. de Kleer, “An assumption-based TMS”, Art.
#WAYS TO USE THE MODAL LOGIC PLAYGROUND VERIFICATION#
Sistla,, “Automatic verification of finite state concurrent Systems using temporal logic specifications” ACM Trans, on Programming Languages and Systems, 8, 244–263. Clark, “Negation as failure”, in Logic and Databases, Plenum Press, N. Chellas, Modal Logic: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press. Burstall, “Program proving as hand simulation with a little induction”, Information Processing 74, 308–312.ī. Burstall, “Some techniques for proving correctness of programs which alter data structures”, Machine Intelligence 7, 23–50. Brown, “Modal propositional semantics for reason maintenance systems”, Proc. , First Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Toronto, Canada, May 15–18, 1989.Ī. Dosen, “Models for normal intuitionistic logics”, Studia Logica 43, 217–245. Pnueli, “Deterministic propositional dynamic logic: finite models, complexity, and completeness”, J. Ben Ari, “Temporal logic proofs of concurrent programs”, Tech. Barringer, A Survey of Verification Techniques for Parallel Programs, LCNS 191, Springer-Verlag, Berlin. Pawlak, eds.), Banach Centre Publications, Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw. Salwicki, “An introduction to algorithmic logic”, in Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science (A. 1986 Workshop on the Foundations of Deductive Databases and Logic Programming. Walker, “Towards a theory of declarative knowledge”, Proc. Manna, “Modal theorem proving”, LCNS 230, 172–188. Finally, we consider some domain-specific control heuristics that are useful for doing deductions in this formalism, and we present several examples of deductions produced by applying these heuristics.M.
We use these notions to express what knowledge a person must have in order to perform a given action and what knowledge a person acquires by carrying out a given action. We integrate this theory with a logic of actions by identifying possible worlds with the situations before and after an action is performed. This means that we reason not about what facts someone knows, but rather what possible worlds are compatible with what he knows. We solve this problem by taking the possible-world semantics for a modal logic of knowledge and axiomatizing it directly in first-order logic. There are, however, no known techniques for efficiently doing automatic deduction directly in modal logics.
The first problem we face in achieving this goal is that the basic facts about knowledge we need to use are most naturally expressed as a modal logic. In particular, we want to be able to reason about what knowledge a person must have in order to perform an action, and what knowledge a person may gain by performing an action. This report deals with the problem of making a computer reason about the interactions between knowledge and action.
0 kommentar(er)
