Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T12:19:51.058Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ACTION TYPES IN STIT SEMANTICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2017

JOHN HORTY  and
ERIC PACUIT
JOHN HORTY*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
ERIC PACUIT*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
*PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK, MD 20742, USA E-mail: horty@umd.edu
†PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK, MD 20742, USA E-mail: epacuit@umd.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stit semantics grows out of a modal tradition in the logic of action that concentrates on an operator representing the agency of an individual in seeing to it that some state of affairs holds, rather than on the actions the individual performs in doing so. The purpose of this paper is to enrich stit semantics, and especially epistemic stit semantics, by supplementing the overall framework with an explicit treatment of action types. We show how the introduction of these new action types allows us to define a modal operator capturing an epistemic sense of agency, and how this operator can be used to express an epistemic sense of ability.

Keywords

03B4203B4403B45stit semanticsability action types
Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Symbolic Logic , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 617 - 637
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ågotnes, T. (2006). Action and knowledge in alternating-time temporal logic. Synthese, 149, 377–409.Google Scholar
Alur, R., Henzinger, T., & Kupferman, O. (2002). Alternating-time temporal logic. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 49, 672–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, R. & Dreze, J.-H. (2008). Rational expectations in games. American Economic Review, 98, 72–86.Google Scholar
Belnap, N., Perloff, M., & Xu, M. (2001). Facing the Future: Agents and Choices in our Indeterministic World. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Broersen, J. (2008). A logical analysis of the interaction between ‘obligation-to-do’ and ‘knowingly doing’. In van der Torre, L. and van der Meyden, R., editors. Proceedings the Ninth International Workshop on Deontic Logic in Computer Science (DEON-08) . Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 5076. Springer, pp. 140–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersen, J. (2011). Deontic epistemic stit logic distinguishing modes of mens rea. Journal of Applied Logic, 9(2), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broersen, J., Herzig, A., & Troquard, N. (2005). From coalition logic to STIT. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Logic and Communication in Multi-Agent Systems (LCMAS 2005) . Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Vol. 157. Elsevier, pp. 23–35.Google Scholar
Broersen, J., Herzig, A., & Troquard, N. (2006). Embedding alternating-time temporal logic in strategic stit logic of agency. Journal of Logic and Computation, 16, 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, M. (1988). On the logic of ability. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 17, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chellas, B. (1969). The Logical Form of Imperatives. Ph.D. Thesis, Philosophy Department, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Herzig, A. & Troquard, N. (2006). Knowing how to play: Uniform choices in logics of agency. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems (AAMAS-06) . The Association for Computing Machinery Press, pp. 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, J. (2001). Agency and Deontic Logic. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Horty, J. & Belnap, N. (1995). The deliberative stit: A study of action, omission, ability, and obligation. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24, 583–644.Google Scholar
Jamroga, W. & Ågotnes, T. (2007). Constructive knowledge: What agents can achieve under incomplete information. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics, 17, 423–475.Google Scholar
Jamroga, W. & van der Hoek, W. (2004). Agents that know how to play. Fundamenta Informaticae, 63, 185–219.Google Scholar
Kenny, A. (1975). Will, Freedom, and Power. Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kenny, A. (1976). Human abilities and dynamic modalities. In Manninen, J. and Tuomela, R., editors. Essays on Explanation and Understanding: Studies in the Foundations of Humanities and Social Sciences. The Netherlands: D. Reidel Publishing Company, pp. 209–232.Google Scholar
Lindström, S. & Segerberg, K. (2007). Modal logic and philosophy. In Blackburn, P., van Benthem, J., and Wolter, F., editors. Handbook of Modal Logic. Elsevier, pp. 1149–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorini, E., Longin, D., & Mayor, E. (2014). A logical analysis of responsibility attribution: emotions, individuals, and collectives. Journal of Logic and Computation, 24, 1313–1339.Google Scholar
Pauly, M. (2002). A modal logic for coalitional power in games. Journal of Logic and Computation, 12, 149–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, A. (1967). Past, Present, and Future. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schobbens, P.-Y. (2004). Alternating-time logic with imperfect recall. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 85(2), 82–93.Google Scholar
Segerberg, K. (1992). Getting started: Beginnings in the logic of action. Studia Logica, 51, 347–378.Google Scholar
Stalnaker, R. (1999). Extensive and strategic forms: Games and models for games. Research in Economics, 53, 293–319.Google Scholar
Thomason, R. (1970). Indeterminist time and truth-value gaps. Theoria, 36, 264–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Benthem, J. (2001). Games in dynamic epistemic logic. Bulletin of Economic Research, 53, 219–249.Google Scholar
Xu, M. (2010). Combinations of stit and actions. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information, 19, 485–503.Google Scholar