Advertisement

Notions of Instrumentality in Agency Logic

  • Kees van Berkel
  • Matteo Pascucci
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11224)

Abstract

We present a logic of agency called LAE whose language includes propositional constants for actions and expectations. The logic is based on Von Wright’s theory of agency in general and his analysis of instrumentality in particular. An axiomatization of the logic, including an independence of agents axiom, is provided and soundness and completeness are shown with respect to its intended class of frames. The framework of LAE will allow us to formally define a manifold of concepts involved in agency theories, including Von Wright’s four elementary forms of action, the notion of forbearance and notions of instrumentality that make reference to an agent’s expectations.

Keywords

Action logic Agency Expectations Instrumentality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the WWTF project MA16-28.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, A.R.: A reduction of deontic logic to alethic modal logic. Mind 67(265), 100–103 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Åqvist, L.: Old foundations for the logic of agency and action. Studia Logica 72(3), 313–338 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bentzen, M.M.: Action type deontic logic. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 23(4), 397–414 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belnap, N., Perloff, M., Xu, M.: Facing the Future. Agents and Choices in our Indeterminist World. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blackburn, P., de Rijke, M., Venema, Y.: Modal Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broersen, J.: A logical analysis of the interaction between ‘Obligation-to-do’ and ‘Knowingly Doing’. In: van der Meyden, R., van der Torre, L. (eds.) DEON 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5076, pp. 140–154. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-70525-3_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fischer, M., Ladner, R.: Propositional dynamic logic of regular programs. J. Comput. Syst. Sci. 18(2), 194–211 (1979)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harel, D., Kozen, D., Tiuryn, J.: Dynamic Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herzig, A., Lorini, E.: A dynamic logic of agency I: STIT, capabilities and powers. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 19(1), 89–121 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horty, J.: Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Segerberg, K.: Getting started: beginnings in the logic of action. Studia Logica 51(3), 347–378 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    von Wright, G.H.: The Logical Problem of Induction. Barnes & Noble, New York (1957)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    von Wright, G.H.: An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (1968)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    von Wright, G.H.: The Varieties of Goodness. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and Henley (1972). Fourth impressionGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    von Wright, G.H.: Norm and Action: A Logical Enquiry. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London and Henley (1977). Fourth impressionGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xu, M.: Combinations of STIT and actions. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 19(4), 485–503 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Logic and ComputationTU WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations