Advertisement

Exploring the epistemic labyrinth: New directions in the formal theory of knowledge representation

  • Roderic A. Girle
  • Michael A. McRobbie
Logic And Reasoning
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 406)

Abstract

Recently enormous interest has been generated in what researchers in AI and Computer Science have termed the formal theory of knowledge representation or what is known to logicians as epistemic logic. New life has been breathed into this field as the means and motivation for the computational investigation of these formal theories is now at hand. Much of this work has arisen from the epistemic interpretation of normal modal logics. However as vehicles for knowledge representation it now seems clear that these systems are completely inadequate. In this paper we investigate the alternative posed by the non-normal modal logics and discuss techniques for constructing efficient automated theorem provers for these systems.

Keywords and phrases

knowledge representation automated theorem proving multi-valued logics modal logics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barca, A. and McRobbie, M.A. [1985] "Proof Theoretic Interpolation Theorems for Modal Logics", Manuscript, 1985. To be published in Investigations into Interpolation Theorems For Non-Classical Logics, by M.A. McRobbie, R.K. Meyer and A. Barca, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  2. Girle, R.A. [1970] Explanatory Models for Knowledge and Belief, M.A. Thesis, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  3. [1973] "Epistemic Logic, Language, and Concepts", Logique et Analyse, 64, 359–373Google Scholar
  4. [1975] "S1≠S0.9", Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 16, 339–344Google Scholar
  5. [1978] "Logics for Knowledge, Possibility and Existence", Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 19, 200–214.Google Scholar
  6. Elementary Modal Logic, Class Notes, Philosophy Department, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
  7. Halpern, J.Y. (ed.) [1986] Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Knowledge: Proceedings of the 1986 Conference, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos, California, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. Hintikka, J.K. [1962] Knowledge and Belief: An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions, Cornell U.P. Ithaca.Google Scholar
  9. "Reasoning about Knowledge in Philosophy: The Paradigm of Epistemic Logic", in Halpern [1986], 63–80Google Scholar
  10. Hughes, G.E. and Cresswell, M.J. [1972] An Introduction to Modal Logics, Methuen, London, Corrected Repr.Google Scholar
  11. Kripke, S.A. [1965] "Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic II: Non-Normal Modal Propositional Calculi", 206–220 in The Theory of Models, ed. J.W. Addison, L. Henkin and A. Tarski, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  12. Lemmon, E.J. [1966] "Algebraic Semantics for Modal Logics I, II", Journal of Symbolic Logic, 31, 46–65, 191–218Google Scholar
  13. Lewis, C.I. [1918] A Survey of Symbolic Logic, University of California, Berkeley. Lewis, C.I. and Langford, C.H.Google Scholar
  14. [1932] Symbolic Logic, Dover, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Lusk, E., Warren, D.H.D., Haridi, S., Butler, R., Calderwood, A., Disz, T., Olson, R., Overbeek, R., Stevens, R., Szeredi, S., Brand, P., Carlsson, M., Ciepielewski, A. and Hausman, B. [1988] "The Aurora Or-Parallel Prolog System", Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. McKinsey, J.C.C. [1941] "A Solution to the Decision Problem for the Lewis Systems S2 and S4 with an Application to Topology", Journal of Symbolic Logic, 6, 117–134.Google Scholar
  17. McRobbie, M.A. and Barca, A. [1983] "Constructive Interpolation Theorems for Non-Normal Modal Logics", (Abstract), Journal of Symbolic Logic, 48, 895.Google Scholar
  18. McRobbie, M.A., Meyer, R.K. and Thistlewaite, P.B. [1983] "Computer-Aided Investigations into the Decision Problem for Relevant Logics: The Search for a Free Associative Operation”, Australian Computer Science Communications, 5, 236–267. (Proceedings of the 6th Australian Computer Science Conference, ed. L.M. Goldschlager, Basser Department of Computer Science, University of Sydney.)Google Scholar
  19. [1988] "Towards Efficient ‘Knowledge-Based’ Automated Theorem Proving for Non-Classical Logics", in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, 197–217, eds. E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, LNCS 310, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. McRobbie, M.A., Thistlewaite, P.B. and Meyer, R.K. [1980] "A Mechanized Decision Procedure for Non-Classical Logic: The Program KRIPKE", Bulletin of the Section of Logic, Polish Academy of Sciences, 9, 189–192.Google Scholar
  21. [1982] "A Mechanized Decision Procedure for Non-Classical Logic — The Program KRIPKE", (Abstract), Journal of Symbolic Logic, 47, 717.Google Scholar
  22. Malkin, P.K. and Martin, E.P. [1988] "Logical Matrix Generation and Testing", in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automated Deduction, 685–693, eds. E. Lusk and R. Overbeek, LNCS 310, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  23. Matsumoto, K. [1960] "Decision Procedure for Modal Sentential Calculus S3", Osaka Mathematical Journal, 12, 167–175.Google Scholar
  24. Michie, D. and Johnston, R. [1985] The Creative Computer, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  25. Chnishi, M. [1961a] "Gentzen Decision Procedures for Lewis's System S2 and S3". Osaka Mathematical Journal, 13, 125–137.Google Scholar
  26. [1961b] "Von Wright-Anderson's Decision Procedures for Lewis's Systems S2–S3", Osaka Mathematical Journal, 139–142.Google Scholar
  27. Ohnishi, M. and Matsumoto, K. [1957] "Gentzen Methods in Modal Calculi I", Osaka Mathematical Journal, 9, 113–130.Google Scholar
  28. [1959] "Gentzen Methods in Modal Calculi II", Osaka Mathematical Journal, 11, 115–120.Google Scholar
  29. Parry, W.T. [1934] "The postulates for 'strict implication"”, Mind, 43, 78–80.Google Scholar
  30. Rennie, M.K. [1970] "Models for Multiply-Modal Systems", Zeitschrift fur mathematische Logik and Grundlagen der Mathematik, 16, 175–183.Google Scholar
  31. Routley, R. [1975] Reviews of Matsumoto [1960], Ohnishi [1961a] and [1961b] and Ohnishi and Matsumoto [1957] and [1959], Journal of Symbolic Logic, 40, 466–469.Google Scholar
  32. Schotch, P.K. and Jennings, R.E. [1981] "Epistemic Logic, Skepticism, and Non-Normal Modal Logic", Philosophical Studies, 40, 47–67.Google Scholar
  33. Slaney, J.K. [1980] Computers and Relevant Logics: A Project in Computing Matrix Model Structures for Propositional Logics, Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  34. [1985] "3088 Varieties: A Solution to the Ackermann Constant Problem", Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50, 487–501.Google Scholar
  35. Thistlewaite, P.B., McRobbie, M.A. and Meyer, R.K. [1986] "The KRIPKE Automated Theorem Proving System", in Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automated Deduction, ed. J. Siekmann, LNCS 230, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
  36. [1988] Automated Theorem Proving in Non-Classical Logic, Research Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Pitman, London, and Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  37. Thistlewaite, P.B., Meyer, R.K. and McRobbie, M.A. [1985] "Advanced Theorem Proving Techniques for Relevant Logics", Logique et Analyse, 28, 233–256.Google Scholar
  38. Vardi, M.Y. [1986] "On Epistemic Logic and Logical Omniscience", in Halpern [1986], 293–305.Google Scholar
  39. Zeman, J.J. [1973] Modal Logics: The Lewis-Modal Systems, Oxford U.P., London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roderic A. Girle
    • 1
  • Michael A. McRobbie
    • 1
  1. 1.Automated Reasoning ProjectAustralian National UniversityCanberraAUstralia

Personalised recommendations