Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A New Equational Foundation for the Fluent Calculus

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computational Logic — CL 2000 (CL 2000)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 1861))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

A new equational foundation is presented for the Fluent Calculus, an established predicate calculus formalism for reasoning about actions. We discuss limitations of the existing axiomatizations of both equality of states and what it means for a fluent to hold in a state. Our new and conceptually even simpler theory is shown to overcome the restrictions of the existing approach. We prove that the correctness of the Fluent Calculus as a solution to the Frame Problem still holds under the new foundation. Furthermore, we extend our theory by an induction axiom needed for reasoning about integer-valued resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Franz Baader and Jörg H. Siekmann. Unification theory. In D. M. Gabbay, C. J. Hogger, and J. A. Robinson, editors, Handbook of Logic in Artificial Intelligence and Logic Programming. Oxford University Press, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andrew B. Baker. A simple solution to the Yale Shooting problem. In R. Brachman, H. J. Levesque, and R. Reiter, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), pages 11–20, Toronto, Kanada, 1989. Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wolfgang Bibel. Let’s plan it deductively! Artificial Intelligence, 103(1–2):183–208, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  4. V. Diekert and G. Rozenberg, editors. The book of traces. World Scientific, Singapore etc., 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Andreas Henschel and Michael Thielscher. The LMW traffic world in the fluent calculus, 1999. http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/etai/lmw/TRAFFIC/001.

  6. Steffen Hölldobler and Josef Schneeberger. A new deductive approach to planning. New Generation Computing, 8:225–244, 1990.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Steffen Hölldobler and Hans-Peter Störr. Complex plans in the fluent calculus. In S. Hölldobler, editor, Intellectics and Computational Logic. Kluwer Academic, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Steffen Hölldobler and Hans-Peter Störr. Solving the entailment problem in the fluent calculus using binary decision diagrams. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Logic (CL), 2000. (to appear).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Steffen Hölldobler and Michael Thielscher. Computing change and specificity with equational logic programs. Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 14(1):99–133, 1995.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Ray 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 

  11. Erik Sandewall. Logic Modelling Workshop. URL: http://www.ida.liu.se/ext/etai/lmw/, 1999.

  12. John C. Shepherdson. SLDNF-resolution with equality. Journal of Automated Reasoning, 8:297–306, 1992.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Michael Thielscher. Modeling actions with ramifications in nondeterministic, concurrent, and continuous domains—and a case study. 2000. URL: http://pikas.inf.tu-dresden.de/~mit/publications/conferences/casestudy.ps.

  15. Michael Thielscher. Representing the knowledge of a robot. In A. Cohn, F. Giunchiglia, and B. Selman, editors, Proceedings of the International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning (KR), Breckenridge, CO, April 2000. (To appear).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Artificial Intelligence Institute, Department of Computer Science, Dresden University of Technology, 01062, Dresden, Germany

    Hans-Peter Störr & Michael Thielscher

Authors
  1. Hans-Peter Störr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Thielscher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Australian National University, Australia

    John Lloyd

  2. Simon Fraser University, Canada

    Veronica Dahl

  3. Universität Koblenz, Germany

    Ulrich Furbach

  4. The University of Birmingham, UK

    Manfred Kerber

  5. University of Manchester, UK

    Kung-Kiu Lau

  6. The Pennsylvania State University, USA

    Catuscia Palamidessi

  7. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal

    Luís Moniz Pereira

  8. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

    Yehoshua Sagiv

  9. The University of Melbourne, Australia

    Peter J. Stuckey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Störr, HP., Thielscher, M. (2000). A New Equational Foundation for the Fluent Calculus. In: Lloyd, J., et al. Computational Logic — CL 2000. CL 2000. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 1861. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44957-4_49

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44957-4_49

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-67797-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44957-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation