{"title":"行动的逻辑","authors":"K. Segerberg, J. Meyer, M. Kracht","doi":"10.2307/j.ctv1c7zfsc.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article we provide a brief overview of the logic of action in philosophy, linguistics, computer science and artificial intelligence. The logic of action is the formal study of action in which formal languages are the main tool of analysis. The concept of action is of central interest to many disciplines: the social sciences including economics, the humanities including history and literature, psychology, linguistics, law, computer science, artificial intelligence, and probably others. In philosophy it has been studied since the beginning because of its importance for epistemology and, particularly, ethics; and since a few decades it is even studied for its own sake. But it is in the logic of action that action is studied in the most abstract way. The logic of action began in philosophy. But it has also played a certain role in linguistics. And currently it is of great importance in computer science and artificial intelligence. For our purposes it is natural to separate the accounts of these developments. 1 The logic of action in philosophy 1.1 Historical overview Already St Anselm studied the concept of action in a way that must be classified as logical; had he known symbolic logic, he would certainly have made use of it. (Cf. [33] and [101].) In modern times the subject was introduced by, among others, Alan Ross Anderson, Frederick B. Fitch, Stig Kanger, and Georg Henrik von Wright; Kanger’s work was further developed by his students Ingmar Porn and Lars Lindahl. The first clearly semantic account was given by Brian F. Chellas in [11]. (For a more detailed account, see [83] or the mini-history in [8].) Today there are two rather different groups of theories that may be described as falling under the term logic of action. One, the result of the creation of Nuel Belnap and his many collaborators, may be called stit theory (a term that will be explained in the next paragraph). The other is dynamic logic. Both are connected","PeriodicalId":30000,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"49","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The logic of action\",\"authors\":\"K. Segerberg, J. Meyer, M. Kracht\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/j.ctv1c7zfsc.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article we provide a brief overview of the logic of action in philosophy, linguistics, computer science and artificial intelligence. The logic of action is the formal study of action in which formal languages are the main tool of analysis. The concept of action is of central interest to many disciplines: the social sciences including economics, the humanities including history and literature, psychology, linguistics, law, computer science, artificial intelligence, and probably others. In philosophy it has been studied since the beginning because of its importance for epistemology and, particularly, ethics; and since a few decades it is even studied for its own sake. But it is in the logic of action that action is studied in the most abstract way. The logic of action began in philosophy. But it has also played a certain role in linguistics. And currently it is of great importance in computer science and artificial intelligence. For our purposes it is natural to separate the accounts of these developments. 1 The logic of action in philosophy 1.1 Historical overview Already St Anselm studied the concept of action in a way that must be classified as logical; had he known symbolic logic, he would certainly have made use of it. (Cf. [33] and [101].) In modern times the subject was introduced by, among others, Alan Ross Anderson, Frederick B. Fitch, Stig Kanger, and Georg Henrik von Wright; Kanger’s work was further developed by his students Ingmar Porn and Lars Lindahl. The first clearly semantic account was given by Brian F. Chellas in [11]. (For a more detailed account, see [83] or the mini-history in [8].) Today there are two rather different groups of theories that may be described as falling under the term logic of action. One, the result of the creation of Nuel Belnap and his many collaborators, may be called stit theory (a term that will be explained in the next paragraph). The other is dynamic logic. Both are connected\",\"PeriodicalId\":30000,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-03-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"49\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1c7zfsc.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1c7zfsc.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 49
摘要
在本文中,我们简要概述了哲学、语言学、计算机科学和人工智能中的行为逻辑。行为逻辑是对行为的形式研究,其中形式语言是主要的分析工具。行动的概念是许多学科的核心兴趣:包括经济学在内的社会科学,包括历史和文学在内的人文科学,心理学,语言学,法律,计算机科学,人工智能,可能还有其他学科。在哲学中,它从一开始就被研究,因为它对认识论,特别是伦理学的重要性;几十年来,人们甚至为了研究它本身而研究它。但正是在行动的逻辑中,行动才以最抽象的方式被研究。行动的逻辑始于哲学。但它也在语言学中发挥了一定的作用。目前在计算机科学和人工智能领域具有重要的意义。为了我们的目的,自然要把这些事态发展的叙述分开。圣安瑟伦已经以一种必须归类为逻辑的方式研究了行动的概念;如果他懂得符号逻辑,他肯定会利用它的。(参见[33]和[101]。)在现代,这门学科是由艾伦·罗斯·安德森、弗雷德里克·b·费奇、斯蒂格·康格和乔治·亨里克·冯·赖特等人介绍的;Kanger的工作被他的学生Ingmar Porn和Lars Lindahl进一步发展。第一个明确的语义描述是由Brian F. Chellas在1990年提出的。(有关更详细的说明,请参阅[83]或b[8]中的迷你历史。)今天,有两组截然不同的理论可以被描述为属于行动逻辑的范畴。一种是Nuel Belnap和他的许多合作者创造的结果,可以被称为stit理论(这个术语将在下一段解释)。另一个是动态逻辑。两者都有联系
In this article we provide a brief overview of the logic of action in philosophy, linguistics, computer science and artificial intelligence. The logic of action is the formal study of action in which formal languages are the main tool of analysis. The concept of action is of central interest to many disciplines: the social sciences including economics, the humanities including history and literature, psychology, linguistics, law, computer science, artificial intelligence, and probably others. In philosophy it has been studied since the beginning because of its importance for epistemology and, particularly, ethics; and since a few decades it is even studied for its own sake. But it is in the logic of action that action is studied in the most abstract way. The logic of action began in philosophy. But it has also played a certain role in linguistics. And currently it is of great importance in computer science and artificial intelligence. For our purposes it is natural to separate the accounts of these developments. 1 The logic of action in philosophy 1.1 Historical overview Already St Anselm studied the concept of action in a way that must be classified as logical; had he known symbolic logic, he would certainly have made use of it. (Cf. [33] and [101].) In modern times the subject was introduced by, among others, Alan Ross Anderson, Frederick B. Fitch, Stig Kanger, and Georg Henrik von Wright; Kanger’s work was further developed by his students Ingmar Porn and Lars Lindahl. The first clearly semantic account was given by Brian F. Chellas in [11]. (For a more detailed account, see [83] or the mini-history in [8].) Today there are two rather different groups of theories that may be described as falling under the term logic of action. One, the result of the creation of Nuel Belnap and his many collaborators, may be called stit theory (a term that will be explained in the next paragraph). The other is dynamic logic. Both are connected