Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Reasoning Robots pp 59–73Cite as

General Fluent Calculus

  • Chapter

  • 1080 Accesses

Part of the Applied Logic Series book series (APLS,volume 33)

Keywords

  • State Existence
  • Situation Calculus
  • Axiomatic Foundation
  • Lete State
  • Book Store

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   19.99
Price excludes VAT (Canada)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

3.3 Bibliographical Notes

  1. Andrew B. Baker. Nonmonotonic reasoning in the framework of situation calculus. Artificial Intelligence, 49:5–23, 1991.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Chitta Baral. Reasoning about actions: Non-deterministic effects, constraints and qualification. In C. S. Mellish, editor, Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 2017–2023, Montreal, Canada, August 1995. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Daniel G. Bobrow, editor. Artificial Intelligence 13: Special Issue on Non-Monotonic Reasoning. Elsevier, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Daniel C. Dennet. Cognitive wheels: The frame problem of AI. In C. Hookway, editor, Minds, Machines, and Evolution: Philosophical Studies, pages 129–151. Cambridge University Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  5. [Doherty et al., 1998]_Patrick Doherty, Joakim Gustafsson, Lars Karlsson, and Jonas Kvarnström. Temporal action logics (TAL): Language specification and tutorial. Electronic Transactions on Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4):273–306, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Charles Elkan. Reasoning about action in first-order logic. In Proceedings of the Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence (CSCSI), pages 221–227, Vancouver, Canada, May 1992. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Michael Gelfond and Vladimir Lifschitz. Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:301–321, 1993.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. [Giunchiglia et al., 1997]_Enrico Giunchiglia, G. Neelakantan Kartha, and Vladimir Lifschitz. Representing action: Indeterminacy and ramifications. Artificial Intelligence, 95:409–443, 1997.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  9. Cordell Green. Theorem proving by resolution as a basis for question-answering systems. Machine Intelligence, 4:183–205, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Andrew R. Haas. The case for domain-specific frame axioms. In F. M. Brown, editor, The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, pages 343–348, Los Altos, CA, 1987. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Steve Hanks and Drew McDermott. Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence, 33(3):379–412, 1987.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. [Kakas et al., 2001]_Antonis Kakas, Rob Miller, and Francesca Toni. E-res: Reasoning about actions, narratives, and ramifications. In T. Eiter, W. Faber, and M. Trusczynski, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Logic Programming and Nonmonotonic Reasoning (LPNMR), volume 2173 of LNCS, pages 254–266, Vienna, Austria, September 2001. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Antonis Kakas and Rob Miller. A simple declarative language for describing narratives with actions. Journal of Logic Programming, 31(1–3):157–200, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  14. G. Neelakantan Kartha and Vladimir Lifschitz. A simple formalization of actions using circumscription. In C. S. Mellish, editor, Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 1970–1975, Montreal, Canada, August 1995. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  15. G. Neelakantan Kartha. Soundness and completeness theorems for three formalizations of actions. In R. Bajcsy, editor, Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 724–729, Chambéry, France, August 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  16. G. Neelakantan Kartha. Two counterexamples related to Baker’s approach to the frame problem. Artificial Intelligence, 69(1–2):379–391, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Henry Kautz. The logic of persistence. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 401–405, Philadelphia, PA, August 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Robert Kowalski and Fariba Sadri. The situation calculus and event calculus compared. In M. Bruynooghe, editor, Proceedings of the International Logic Programming Symposium (ILPS), pages 539–553, Ithaca, NY, 1994. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Robert Kowalski and Marek Sergot. A logic based calculus of events. New Generation Computing, 4:67–95, 1986.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  20. Robert Kowalski. Logic for Problem Solving, volume 7 of Artificial Intelligence Series. Elsevier, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Vladimir Lifschitz. Formal theories of action (preliminary report). In J. McDermott, editor, Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 966–972, Milan, Italy, August 1987. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Fangzhen Lin and Yoav Shoham. Provably correct theories of action. In Proceedings of the AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 590–595, Anaheim, CA, July 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Norman McCain and Hudson Turner. Satisfiability planning with causal theories. In A. G. Cohn, L. K. Schubert, and S. C. Shapiro, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pages 212–223, Trento, Italy, June 1998. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  24. John McCarthy and Patrick J. Hayes. Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4:463–502, 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  25. John McCarthy. Applications of circumscription to formalizing common-sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 28:89–116, 1986.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  26. Rob Miller and Murray Shanahan. Narratives in the situation calculus. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4(5):513–530, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zenon W. Pylyshyn, editor. The Robot’s Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence. Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Raymond 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, pages 359–380. Academic Press, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Erik Sandewall. An approach to the frame problem and its implementation. In B. Meltzer and D. Michie, editors, Machine Intelligence, volume 7, chapter 11, pages 195–204. Edinburgh University Press, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Erik Sandewall. The range of applicability of nonmonotonic logics for the inertia problem. In R. Bajcsy, editor, Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pages 738–743, Chambéry, France, August 1993. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Erik Sandewall. Features and Fluents. The Representation of Knowledge about Dynamical Systems. Oxford University Press, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lenhart K. Schubert. Monotonic solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: An efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In H. E. Kyberg, R. P. Loui, and G. N. Carlson, editors, Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pages 23–67. Kluwer Academic, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Murray Shanahan. A circumscriptive calculus of events. Artificial Intelligence, 77:249–284, 1995.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  34. Yoav Shoham. Chronological ignorance: Experiments in nonmonotonic temporal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 36:279–331, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lynn Andrea Stein and Leora Morgenstern. Motivated action theory: A formal theory of causal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 71:1–42, 1994.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Michael Thielscher. From situation calculus to fluent calculus: State update axioms as a solution to the inferential frame problem. Artificial Intelligence, 111(1–2):277–299, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hudson Turner. Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: A situation calculus approach. Journal of Logic Programming, 31(1–3):245–298, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 Springer

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(2005). General Fluent Calculus. In: Reasoning Robots. Applied Logic Series, vol 33. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3069-X_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

search

Navigation