Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Logical Theories of Intention and the Database Perspective

  • Published:
Journal of Philosophical Logic Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While logical theories of information attitudes, such as knowledge, certainty and belief, have flourished in the past two decades, formalization of other facets of rational behavior have lagged behind significantly. One intriguing line of research concerns the concept of intention. I will discuss one approach to tackling the notion within a logical framework, based on a database perspective.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alchourrón, C. E., Gärdenfors, P., & Makinson, D. (1985). On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contractions and revision functions. Journal of Symbolic Logic, 50(2), 510–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bratman, M. (1987). Intention, plans and practical reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bratman, M. (2009). Intention, belief, practical, theoretical. In J. Timmerman, J. Skorupski, & S. Robertson (Eds.), Spheres of reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, P. R., & Levesque, H. (1990). Intention is choice with committment. Artificial Intelligence, 42(3), 213–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. de Kleer, J. (1986). An assumption-based TMS. Artificial Intelligence, 28(2), 127–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dean, T., & McDermott, D. V. (1987). Temporal data base management. Artificial Intelligence, 32(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Doyle, J., & Wellman, M. P. (1994). Representing preferences as ceteris paribus comparatives. In Proceedings of the AAAI spring symposium on decision-theoretic planning (pp. 69–75).

  8. Fagin, R., Halpern, J., Moses, Y., & Vardi, M. (1994). Reasoning about knowledge. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Friedman, N., & Halpern, J. Y. (1999). Modelling beliefs in dynamic systems. Part II: Revision and update. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 10, 117–167.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gabbay, D. (1996). Labelled deductive systems. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gettier, E. L. (1963). Is justified true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23, 121–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Harel, D., Kozen, D., & Tiuryn, J. (2000). Dynamic logic. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Harman, G. (1986). Change in view. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Harman, G. (1999). Practical reasoning. In Reasoning, meaning and mind (pp. 46–74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Herzig, A., & Longin, D. (2004). C&l intention revisited. In Proc. KR2004.

  16. Horty, J. F., & Pollack, M. E. (2001). Evaluating new options in the context of existing plans. Artificial Intelligence, 127(2), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Icard, T., Pacuit, E., & Shoham, Y. (2009). A dynamic logic of belief and intention, (Forthcoming).

  18. Kripke, S. A. (1980). Naming and necessity (revised and enlarged edition). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lamarre, P., & Shoham, Y. (1994). Knowledge, certainty, belief, and conditionalisation (abbreviated version). In Proceedings of KR (pp. 415–424).

  20. McCarthy, J. M., & Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. Machine Intelligence, 4, 463–502.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McDermott, D. (1982). A temporal logic for reasoning about processes and plans. Cognitive Science, 6(2), 101–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. McDermott, D. V. (1983). Contexts and data dependencies: A synthesis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 5, 237–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Peppas, P. (2007). Belief revision. In F. van Harmelen, V. Lifschitz, & B. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of knowledge representation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rao, A. S., & Georgeff, M. P. (1991). Modeling rational agents within a BDI-architecture. In Proceedings of the third conference on knowledge representation and reasoning. Morgan Kaufmann.

  25. Robinson, P. H., & Dubber, M. D. (2007). The American model penal code: A brief overview. New Criminal Law Review, 10(3), 319–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rott, H. (2001). Change, choice and inference: A study of belief revision and nonmonotonic reasoning. Oxford logic guides. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Roy, O. (2008). Thinking before acting: Intentions, logic, rational choice. PhD thesis, Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam.

  28. Roy, O. (2009). Intentions and interactive transformations of decision problems. Synthese, 169(2), 335–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sandewall, E. J., & Shoham, Y. (1994). Nonmonotonic temporal reasoning. In D. Gabbai (Ed.), Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Shoham, Y. (1993). Agent oriented programming. Journal of Artificial I ntelligence, 60(1), 51–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. van Benthem, J. (1997). Exploring logical dynamics. CSLI, Stanford University.

  32. van Benthem, J., Girard, P., & Roy, O. (2008). Everything else being equal: A modal logic for ceteris paribus preferences. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 38(1), 83–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. van der Hoek, W., Jamroga, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2007). Towards a theory of intention revision. Synthese, 155(2), 265–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. van der Hoek, W., & Wooldridge, M. (2003). Towards a logic of rational agency. Logic Journal of the IGPL, 11(2), 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B. (2007). Dynamic epistemic logic. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Velleman, J. D. (2008). What good is a will? In A. Leist, & H. Baumann (Eds.), Action in context. Berlin: de Gruyter/Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Voorbrak, F. (1990). Generalized Kripke models for epistemic logic. In Proceedings conference on theoretical aspects of reasoning about knowledge (pp. 214–228). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wallace, R. J. (2006). Normativity and the will. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weld, D. S. (1999). Recent advances in AI planning. AI Magazine, 20, 93–123.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yaffe, G. (2004). Trying, intending, and attempted crimes. Philosophical Topics, 32(1–2).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Yoav Shoham

  2. Microsoft Israel R&D Center, Herzliya Pituach, Herzliya, Israel

    Yoav Shoham

Authors
  1. Yoav Shoham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yoav Shoham.

Additional information

I first met Johan van Benthem when I was a graduate student working on temporal logic, and Johan the world authority on the topic. His gracious and thoughtful response to my writing impressed and gratified me. I still keep his first, impeccably hand-written letter to me. I have had the pleasure of interacting with Johan over the years, including, in recent years, co-teaching with him a course at Stanford on Logic and Rational Agency. The present article is relevant to the subject matter of that course, and it is a pleasure to contribute it to this special issue in his honor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shoham, Y. Logical Theories of Intention and the Database Perspective. J Philos Logic 38, 633–647 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-009-9116-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-009-9116-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation