Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 195, Issue 10, pp 4419–4439 | Cite as

A logic of goal-directed knowing how

  • Yanjing WangEmail author
S.I.: LORI - V

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a decidable single-agent modal logic for reasoning about goal-directed “knowing how”, based on ideas from linguistics, philosophy, modal logic, and automated planning in AI. We first define a modal language to express “I know how to guarantee \(\varphi \) given \(\psi \)” with a semantics based not on standard epistemic models but on labeled transition systems that represent the agent’s knowledge of his own abilities. The semantics is inspired by conformant planning in AI. A sound and complete proof system is given to capture valid reasoning patterns, which highlights the compositional nature of “knowing how”. The logical language is further extended to handle knowing how to achieve a goal while maintaining other conditions.

Keywords

Knowing how Epistemic logic Conformant planning Modal logic 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledges the support from the National Program for Special Support of Eminent Professionals and NSSF key projects 12&ZD119. The author thanks Frank Veltman, Maria Aloni and the two anonymous reviewers of this journal for their helpful comments on the earlier versions of the paper. The author is grateful to John Maier who proofread the paper.

References

  1. Ågotnes, T., Goranko, V., Jamroga, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2015). Knowledge and ability, chapter 11. In H. van Ditmarsch, J. Halpern, W. van der Hoek, & B. Kooi (Eds.), Handbook of epistemic logic. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  2. Alur, R., Henzinger, T., & Kupferman, O. (2002). Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the ACM, 49, 672–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Areces, C., Fervari, R., & Hoffmann, G. (2015). Relation-changing modal operators. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 23(4), 601–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Artemov, S. (2008). The logic of justification. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1(04), 477–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Belardinelli, F. (2014). Reasoning about knowledge and strategies: Epistemic strategy logic. In Proceedings of SR, 2014 (pp. 27–33)Google Scholar
  6. Broersen, J. (2008). A logical analysis of the interaction between ‘obligation-to-do’ and ‘knowingly doing’. In Proceedings of DEON, 08 (pp. 140–154)Google Scholar
  7. Broersen, J., & Herzig, A. (2015). Using STIT theory to talk about strategies. In J. van Benthem, S. Ghosh, & R. Verbrugge (Eds.), Models of strategic reasoning: Logics, games, and communities (pp. 137–173). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, M. A. (1988). On the logic of ability. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, D. (1979). The logic of knowing how and ability. Mind, 88(351), 394–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ciardelli, I., & Roelofsen, F. (2015). Inquisitive dynamic epistemic logic. Synthese, 192(6), 1643–1687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (2013). Inquisitive semantics: A new notion of meaning. Language and Linguistics Compass, 7(9), 459–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egré, P. (2008). Question-embedding and factivity. Grazer Philosophische Studien, 77(1), 85–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. (1995). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fan, J., Wang, Y., & van Ditmarsch, H. (2014). Almost necessary. Advances in Modal Logic, 10, 178–196.Google Scholar
  15. Fan, J., Wang, Y., & van Ditmarsch, H. (2015). Contingency and knowing whether. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 8, 75–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fantl, J. (2008). Knowing-how and knowing-that. Philosophy Compass, 3(3), 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitting, M., & Mendelsohn, R. L. (1998). First-order modal logic. Synthese library. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gochet, P. (2013). An open problem in the logic of knowing how. In J. Hintikka (Ed.), Open problems in epistemology. Helsinki: The Philosophical Society of Finland.Google Scholar
  19. Gochet, P., & Gribomont, P. (2006). Epistemic logic. In D. M. Gabbay & J. Woods (Eds.), Handbook of the history of logic (Vol. 7). North Holland: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. Goranko, V., & Passy, S. (1992). Using the universal modality: Gains and questions. Journal of Logic and Computation, 2(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gu, T., & Wang, Y. (2016). “Knowing value” logic as a normal modal logic. Advances in Modal Logic, 11, 362–381.Google Scholar
  22. Harrah, D. (2002). The logic of questions. In D. Gabbay (Ed.), Handbook of philosophical logic (Vol. 8). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Hart, S., Heifetz, A., & Samet, D. (1996). Knowing whether, knowing that, and the cardinality of state spaces. Journal of Economic Theory, 70(1), 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herzig, A. (2015). Logics of knowledge and action: Critical analysis and challenges. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 29(5), 719–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herzig, A., & Troquard, N. (2006). Knowing how to play: Uniform choices in logics of agency. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 06 (pp. 209–216)Google Scholar
  26. Herzig, A., Lorini, E., & Walther, D. (2013). Reasoning about actions meets strategic logics. In Proceedings of LORI, 2013 (pp. 162–175)Google Scholar
  27. Hintikka, J. (1962). Knowledge and belief: An introduction to the logic of the two notions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hintikka, J. (1989). Reasoning about knowledge in philosophy: The paradigm of epistemic logic. In The logic of epistemology and the epistemology of logic, synthese library (Vol. 200, pp. 17–35). Dordrecht: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  29. Hintikka, J. (2007). Socratic epistemology: Explorations of knowledge-seeking by questioning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van der Hoek, W., & Lomuscio, A. (2003). Ignore at your peril: Towards a logic for ignorance. In Proceedings of AAMAS, 03 (pp. 1148–1149).Google Scholar
  31. Jamroga, W., & van der Hoek, W. (2004). Agents that know how to play. Fundamenta Informaticae, 63(2–3), 185–219.Google Scholar
  32. Kracht, M., & Wolter, F. (1997). Simulation and transfer results in modal logic: A survey. Studia Logica, 59(1), 149–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lau, T., Wang, Y. (2016). Knowing your ability. The Philosophical Forum, pp. 415–424Google Scholar
  34. Lenzen, W. (1978). Recent work in epistemic logic. Acta Philosophica Fennica, 30(2), 1–219.Google Scholar
  35. Li, Y., Wang, Y. (2017). Achieving while maintaining: A logic of knowing how with intermediate constraints. In: Proceedings of ICLA’17 (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  36. McCarthy, J. (1979). First-order theories of individual concepts and propositions. Machine Intelligence, 9, 129–147.Google Scholar
  37. McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Machine intelligence (pp. 463–502). Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar
  38. Moore, R. C. (1985). A formal theory of knowledge and action. In J. R. Hobbs & R. C. Moore (Eds.), Formal theories of the commonsense world. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  39. Morgenstern, L. (1986). A first order theory of planning, knowledge, and action. In Proceedings TARK 86 (pp. 99–114). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  40. Noë, A. (2005). Against intellectualism. Analysis, 65, 278–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Plaza, J. A. (1989). Logics of public communications. In M. L. Emrich, M. S. Pfeifer, M. Hadzikadic, Z. W. Ras (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on methodologies for intelligent systems (pp. 201–216)Google Scholar
  42. Ryle, G. (1946). Knowing how and knowing that: The presidential address. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 46, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, D. E., & Weld, D. S. (1998). Conformant graphplan. In: AAAI 98 (pp. 889–896).Google Scholar
  44. Stanley, J. (2011). Know how. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanley, J. (2001). Knowing how. The Journal of Philosophy, 98, 411–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tillio, A. D., Halpern, J. Y., & Samet, D. (2014). Conditional belief types. Games and Economic Behavior, 87, 253–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Benthem, J., van Eijck, J., & Kooi, B. (2006). Logics of communication and change. Information and Computation, 204(11), 1620–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Ditmarsch, H., Halpern, J. Y., van der Hoek, W., & Kooi, B. (2015). Handbook of epistemic logic. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Von Wright, G. H. (1951). An essay in modal logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  51. Wang, R. J. (2011). Timed modal epistemic logic. PhD thesis, City University of New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Wang, Y. (2015a). A logic of knowing how. In Proceedings of LORI, 2015 (pp. 392–405)Google Scholar
  53. Wang, Y. (2015b). Representing imperfect information of procedures with hyper models. In Proceedings of ICLA, 2015 (pp. 218–231)Google Scholar
  54. Wang, Y. (forthcoming). Beyond knowing that: A new generation of epistemic logics. In H. van Ditmarsch & G. Sandu (Eds.), Jaakko Hintikka on knowledge and game theoretical semantics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Wang, Y., & Fan, J. (2013). Knowing that, knowing what, and public communication: Public announcement logic with Kv operators. In Proceedings of IJCAI, 13 (pp. 1147–1154)Google Scholar
  56. Wang, Y., & Fan, J. (2014). Conditionally knowing what. Advances in Modal Logic, 10, 569–587.Google Scholar
  57. Wang, Y., & Li, Y. (2012). Not all those who wander are lost: Dynamic epistemic reasoning in navigation. Advances in Modal Logic, 9, 559–580.Google Scholar
  58. Yu, Q., Li, Y., & Wang, Y. (2016). A dynamic epistemic framework for conformant planning. In Proceedings of TARK’15, EPTCS (pp. 298–318)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyPeking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations