Advertisement

The Situation and State Calculus versus Branching Temporal Logic

  • Jaime Ramos
  • Amílcar Sernadas
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1589)

Abstract

The situation calculus (SC) is a formalism for reasoning about action. Within SC, the notion of state of a given situation is usually characterized by the set of fluents that hold in that situation. However, this concept is insufficient for system specification. To overcome this limitation, an extension of SC is proposed, the situation and state calculus (SSC), where the concept of state is primitive, just like actions, situations and fluents. SSC is then compared with a branching temporal logic (BTL). A representation of BTL in SSC is defined and shown to establish a sound and complete encoding.

Keywords

Temporal Logic Natural Transformation Linear Temporal Logic Predicate Symbol Interpretation Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    J. P. Burgess. Logic and time. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 44:566–582, 1979.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Ehrig and B. Mahr. Fundamentals of Algebraic Specification 1: Initial Semantics, volume 6 of EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y., 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Fiadeiro and A. Sernadas. Structuring theories on consequence. In D. Sannella and A. Tarlecki, editors, Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Recent Trends in Data Type Specification, volume 332 of LNCS, pages 44–72, Berlin, 1988. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. Gelfond, V. Lifschitz, and A. Rabinov. What are the limitations of the situation calculus? In Robert Boyer, editor, Automated Reasoning: Essays in Honor of Woody Bledsoe, pages 167–179. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    J. Goguen and R. M. Burstall. Introducing institutions. In E. Clarke and D. Kozen, editors, Logics of Programs: Workshop, Carnegie Mellon University, June 1983, volume 164 of LNCS, pages 221–256. Springer-Verlag, New York, N.Y., 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. Lifschitz and A. Rabinov. Miracles in formal theories of action. Articial Intelligence, 38:225–237, 1989.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Z. Manna and A. Pnueli. Completing the temporal picture. Theoretical Computer Science, 93:97–130, 1991.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. McCarthy and P. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, Scotland, 1969.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Meseguer. General logics. In H.-D. Ebbinghaus et al, editor, Proc. Logic Colloquium’ 87. North-Holland, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    R. Miller and M. Shanahan. Narratives in the situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation — Special Issue on Actions and Processes, 4(5):513–530, 1994.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Pinto and R. Reiter. Reasoning about time in the situation calculus. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence: Papers in Honour of Jack Minker, 14(2–4):251–268, 1995.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. Ramos. The situation and state calculus. In A. Drewery, G.-J. Kruijff and R. Zuber, editors, Proceedings of the Second ESSLLI Student Session, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    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: Papers in Honor of John McCarthy, pages 359–380. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. Reiter. Proving properties of states in the situation calculus. Articial Intelligence, 64:337–351, 1993.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas, and J. Costa. Object specification logic. Journal of Logic and Computation, 1:7–25, 1995.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. Sernadas, C. Sernadas, and J. Ramos. A temporal logic approach to object certification. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 19:267–294, 1996.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Stirling. Modal and temporal logics. In S. Abramsky, D. Gabbay, and T. Maibaum, editors, Handbook of Logic in Computer Science. Volume 2. Background: Computational Structures, pages 477–563. Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. van Benthem. Correspondence theory. In D. Gabbay and F. Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Volume II: Extensions of Classical Logic, volume 165 of Synthese Library, chapter II.4, pages 167–247. D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. Zanardo. Branching-time logic with quantification over branches: The point of view of modal logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 61(1):1–39, 1996.CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    A. Zanardo, B. Barcellan, and M. Reynolds. Non-denability of the class of complete bundled trees. The Logic Journal of IGPL. To appear.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaime Ramos
    • 1
  • Amílcar Sernadas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsISTLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations