text:
Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world
ABSTRACT For some time we have been developing, and have had significant practical success with, a time-sensitive, contradiction-tolerant logical reasoning engine called the active logic machine (ALMA). The current paper details a semantics for a general version of the underlying logical formalism, active logic. Central to active logic are special rules controlling the inheritance of beliefs in general (and of beliefs about the current time in particular), very tight controls on what can be derived from direct contradictions (P&¬P), and mechanisms allowing an agent to represent and reason about its own beliefs and past reasoning. Furthermore, inspired by the notion that until an agent notices that a set of beliefs is contradictory, that set seems consistent (and the agent therefore reasons with it as if it were consistent), we introduce an "apperception function" that represents an agent's limited awareness of its own beliefs, and serves to modify inconsistent belief sets so as to yield consistent sets. Using these ideas, we introduce a new definition of logical consequence in the context of active logic, as well as a new definition of soundness such that, when reasoning with consistent premises, all classically sound rules remain sound in our new sense. However, not everything that is classically sound remains sound in our sense, for by classical definitions, all rules with contradictory premises are vacuously sound, whereas in active logic not everything follows from a contradiction.
- Citations (44)
- Cited In (0)
- SourceAvailable from: ucf.edu[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: A formalism for reasoning about actions is proposed that is based on a temporal logic. It allows a much wider range of actions to be described than with previous approaches such as the situation calculus. This formalism is then used to characterize the different types of events, processes, actions, and properties that can be described in simple English sentences. In addressing this problem, we consider actions that involve non-activity as well as actions that can only be defined in terms of the beliefs and intentions of the actors. Finally, a framework for planning in a dynamic world with external events and multiple agents is suggested.Artif. Intell. 01/1984; 23:123-154.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Reasoning with limited computational resources (such as time or memory) is an important problem, in particular in knowledge-intensive embedded systems. Classical logic is usually considered inappropriate for this purpose as no guarantees regarding deadlines can be made. One of the more interesting approaches to address this problem is built around the concept of active logics. Although a step in the right direction, active logics are just a preliminary attempt towards nding an acceptable solution. Our work is based on the assumption that Labeled Deductive Sys- tems oer appropriate metamathematical methodology to study the problem. As a rst step, we have reformulated a pair of active logics systems, namely the memory model and its formalized simplication, the step logic, as Labeled Deductive Systems. This paper presents our motivation behind this project, followed by an overview of the investigations on meta-reasoning relevant to this work, and introduces in some reasonable detail the MM system.
Article: Some syntactic approaches to the handling of inconsistent knowledge bases: A comparative study - Part 1: The flat case[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This paper presents and discusses several methods for reasoning from inconsistent knowledge bases. A so-called argued consequence relation, taking into account the existence of consistent arguments in favour of a conclusion and the absence of consistent arguments in favour of its contrary, is particularly investigated. Flat knowledge bases, i.e., without any priority between their elements, are studied under different inconsistency-tolerant consequence relations, namely the so-called argumentative, free, universal, existential, cardinality-based, and paraconsistent consequence relations. The syntax-sensitivity of these consequence relations is studied. A companion paper is devoted to the case where priorities exist between the pieces of information in the knowledge base. Key words: inconsistency, argumentation, nonmonotonic reasoning, syntaxsensitivity. * Some of the results contained in this paper were presented at the Ninth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI'...Studia Logica 07/1997; · 0.34 Impact Factor
Page 1
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
JID:ARTINTAID:2334 /FLA[m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.1(1-19)
Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world
Michael L. Andersona,d,∗, Walid Gomaab,e, John Grantb,c, Don Perlisa,b
aInstitute for Advanced Computer Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
bDepartment of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
cDepartment of Mathematics, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA
dDepartment of Psychology, Franklin & Marshall College, Lancaster, PA 17604, USA
eDepartment of Computer and Systems Engineering, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
Received 7 December 2006; received in revised form 14 November 2007; accepted 16 November 2007
For some time we have been developing, and have had significant practical success with, a time-sensitive, contradiction-tolerant
logical reasoning engine called the active logic machine (ALMA). The current paper details a semantics for a general version of the
underlying logical formalism, active logic. Central to active logic are special rules controlling the inheritance of beliefs in general
(and of beliefs about the current time in particular), very tight controls on what can be derived from direct contradictions (P&¬P),
and mechanisms allowing an agent to represent and reason about its own beliefs and past reasoning. Furthermore, inspired by the
notion that until an agent notices that a set of beliefs is contradictory, that set seems consistent (and the agent therefore reasons
with it as if it were consistent), we introduce an "apperception function" that represents an agent's limited awareness of its own
beliefs, and serves to modify inconsistent belief sets so as to yield consistent sets. Using these ideas, we introduce a new definition
of logical consequence in the context of active logic, as well as a new definition of soundness such that, when reasoning with
consistent premises, all classically sound rules remain sound in our new sense. However, not everything that is classically sound
remains sound in our sense, for by classical definitions, all rules with contradictory premises are vacuously sound, whereas in active
logic not everything follows from a contradiction.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Logic; Active logic; Nonmonotonic logic; Paraconsistent logic; Semantics; Soundness; Brittleness; Autonomous agents; Time
1. Introduction
Real agents have some important characteristics that we need to take into account when thinking about how they
might actually reason logically: (a) their reasoning takes time, meaning that agents always have only a limited, evolv-
ing awareness of the consequences of their own beliefs,1and (b) their knowledge is imperfect, meaning that some
of their beliefs will need to be modified or retracted, and they will inevitably face direct contradictions and other in-
*Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Franklin & Marshall College, P.O. Box 3003, Lancaster, PA 17604-3003, USA.
E-mail addresses: email@example.com (M.L. Anderson), email@example.com (W. Gomaa), firstname.lastname@example.com (J. Grant),
firstname.lastname@example.com (D. Perlis).
1Levesque's distinction between explicit and implicit beliefs [29] points to this same issue; however, our approach is precisely to model the
evolving awareness itself, rather than trying to model the full set of (implicit) consequences of a given belief set.
0004-3702/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Page 2
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
AID:2334 /FLA [m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.2(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
consistencies. Indeed, real agents will not only often find their beliefs contradicted by experience, but will sometimes
find that their beliefs have been internally inconsistent for some time, although they are only now in a position to
notice this inconsistency, having derived a certain set of consequences that makes it apparent. The challenge from the
standpoint of classical logical formalisms is that, if an agent's knowledge base can be inconsistent, then according to
classical logic, it is permissible to derive any formula from it.
This fact about classical logics is commonly known by the Latin phrase ex contradictione quodlibet: from a con-
tradiction everything follows. However, Graham Priest has coined the somewhat more vivid term explosive logics: a
logic is explosive iff for all formulas A and B, (A&¬A) |= B. Priest defines a paraconsistent logic precisely as one
which is not explosive [40–42]. Now, clearly real agents cannot tolerate the promiscuity of belief resulting from ex-
plosive logics, and must somehow maintain control over their reasoning, watching for and dealing with contradictions
as they arise. The reasoning of real agents, that is, must be paraconsistent. But what sort of paraconsistent logic might
agents usefully employ, what methods might agents use to control inference and deal with contradictions, and how
can these logics (and methods) be modeled in terms of truth and consequence in structures?
In the current paper we are primarily interested in the last of these questions. For some time we have been devel-
oping, and have had significant practical success with a time-sensitive, contradiction-tolerant logical reasoning engine
called the active logic machine (ALMA) [46]. Because ALMA was designed with the above challenges in mind,
its underlying formalism, active logic [17,18,33,34], includes special rules controlling the inheritance of beliefs in
general (and of beliefs about the current time in particular), very tight controls on what can be derived from direct
contradictions (P&¬P), and mechanisms allowing an agent to represent and reason about its own beliefs and past
Here we offer a semantics for a general version of active logic. We hope and expect it will be of interest as a specific
model of formal reasoning for real-world agents that have to face both the relentlessness of time, and the inevitability
of contradictions.
In Sections 2–6 we will introduce the formal semantics for active logic, discuss a new definition of the conse-
quence relation, and give examples of sound and unsound active logic inferences. This will be followed by some more
informal discussion of the various properties of active logic (Section 7), a comparison of active logic with related
approaches (Section 8), and a discussion of the practical issues involved with the use of active logic in real-world
agents (Sections 9 and 10).
2. A semantics for real-world reasoning
In this section we propose a semantics for a time-sensitive, contradiction-tolerant reasoning formalism, incorporat-
ing the basic features of active logic.
2.1. Starting assumptions
In order to make the problem tractable for our first specification of the semantics, we will work under the following
assumptions concerning the agent, the world (i.e., everything apart from the agent), and their interactions:
• There is only one agent a.
• The agent starts its life at time t = 0 (t ∈ N) and runs indefinitely.
• The world is stationary for t ? 0. Thus, changes occur only in the beliefs of the agent a.
Given these assumptions, there is one and only one true complete theory of the world; however, given that the
agent's beliefs evolve over time, there is a different true complete theory of the agent for each time t.
2.2. The language L
In order to express theories about such an agent-and-world, we define a sorted first-order language L. We define
it in two parts: the language Lw, a propositional language in which will be expressed facts about the world, and the
language La, a first-order language used to express facts about the agent, including the agent's beliefs, for instance that
the agent's time is now t, that the agent believes P, or that the agent discovered a contradiction in its beliefs at a given
Page 3
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
JID:ARTINTAID:2334 /FLA[m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.3(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
time. We write SnKto mean the set of sentences of any language K. We are using the complete set of connectives
{¬,→} from whichotherconnectives,suchas ∧, and ∨,can bederived.We assumethat doublenegationsare removed
from formulas. For the sentence symbols the subscripts are used to indicate different propositional sentences and, for
a fixed subscript, the superscripts are used to indicate different apperceptions (see Section 4) of the agent of the same
proposition. The superscript 0 is used for the original sentence symbol (without superscript).
Definition 1. Let Lwbe a propositional language consisting of the following symbols:
• a set S of sentence symbols (propositional or sentential variables) S = {Sj
• the propositional connectives ¬ and →
• left and right parentheses ( and )
i: i,j ∈ N} (N is the set of natural
SnLwis the set of sentences of Lwformed in the usual way. These represent the propositional beliefs of the agent
about the world. For instance S0
1might mean "John is happy". For later use we assume there is a fixed lexicographic
ordering for the sentences in SnLw.
Definition 2. Let σ,θ ∈ SnLw. We say that {σ,θ} is a direct contradiction if one of the following holds: either θ is the
formula σ preceded by a negation, or σ is the formula θ preceded by a negation, that is θ = ¬σ or σ = ¬θ.
Before giving the definition of the language La, we remark the following:
i. In its current version Lais a restricted form of first-order logic that is essentially propositional. In future work we
intend to extend it to the full power of first-order logic.
ii. Lacontains a belief predicate that captures the fact that the agent believed a certain proposition at some time t.
We allow for sentences of the form: at time s the agent believed that she believed that she .... To allow for this
indefinite (however finite) nesting, the definition of Lahas to be inductive where at stage n+1 all sentences from
the previous levels are captured for the belief predicate.
Definition 3. The language Lais a sorted restricted version of first-order logic having three sorts:
• S1is used to represent SnLw.
• S2is used to represent time.
• S3is used to represent SnLat its various stages of construction as shown below.
Lawill be defined as the union of a sequence of languages {Ln}n∈Nwhich are defined as follows:
• n = 0: L0is a restricted first-order sorted language that does not contain variables or quantifiers, and consists of
the following symbols:
– the propositional connective ¬
– a set of constant symbols C = {i: i ∈ N} of sort S2(this represents the time indices)
– a set of constant symbols D = {σ: σ ∈ SnLw}, each is of sort S1(here for simplicity, the constant symbols used
to represent SnLware the sentences themselves)
– a set of constant symbols E0= {θ: θ ∈ SnLw}, each is of sort S3(again for simplicity the sentences themselves
are used as constant symbols)
– the unary predicate symbol Now of sort S2
– the binary predicate symbol Contra of sort (S1×S2).
• n ? 1: Assume that Lmhas already been defined for all 0 ? m < n. Lnis a restricted first-order sorted language
that does not contain variables or quantifiers. In addition to the symbols of Ln−1, it contains a set of constant
symbols En= {θ: θ ∈ SnLn−1} of sort S3. Also, L1(and hence all Li, 1 ? i) contains a binary predicate symbol
Bel of sort (S3×S2).
Page 4
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
AID:2334 /FLA [m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.4(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
Let E =?
The sort S2stands for time. In La, Now is used to express the agent's time, Contra is used to indicate the existence
of a direct contradiction in its beliefs, and Bel expresses the fact that the agent had a particular belief at a given
time. We use these predicate symbols because they are crucial for active logic. The semantics for these predicates
will be defined formally in Definition 8. Note that La contains only the connective ¬; hence statements such as
Bel(θ,t) → Bel(θ,t +1) are not in the language.
However, we do not specify one specific set of active logic rules. This means that the semantics we will specify is
applicable to a class of active logics with different rules that share a few common features.
i∈NEi. Let the language La=?
n∈NLnso SnLa=?
n∈NSnLn. C,D,E are sets of constant symbols.
All of these constant symbols are terms in the language La.
Definition 4. Let L = La∪Lw, in the sense that SnL= SnLa∪SnLw.
Definition 5. Let the agent's knowledge base at time t, KBt, be a finite set of sentences from L, that is, KBt⊆ SnL. In
the case of KB0the only formulas of SnLwwe allow are those whose superscripts are all 0.
We can imagine KB0containing any sentences from L with which a system designer would equip an agent. KB0
may or may not be consistent (no system designer is perfect!). After time 0, each KBt can be different from KB0
because of inference, observation, forgetting, and the like. Also, although all the sentences about the world initially
have superscript 0 for the sentence symbols, as we will see later the agent may assign different superscripts to the
sentence symbols thereby changing a possibly inconsistent set to one that is consistent.
2.3. The semantics of Lw
In the following several definitions, we define the semantics of the formalism given above, in the standard way.
Definition 6. An Lw-truth assignment is a function h : S → {T,F} defined over the set S of sentence symbols in Lw.
Definition 7. An Lw interpretation h (we keep the same notation for this induced interpretation) is a function
h:SnLw→ {T,F} over SnLwthat extends an Lw-truth assignment h as follows:
h(¬ϕ) = T ⇐⇒ h(ϕ) = F
h(ϕ → ψ) = F ⇐⇒ (h(ϕ) = T and h(ψ) = F)
We also stipulate a standard definition of consistency for Lw: a set of Lwsentences is consistent iff there is some
interpretation h in which all the sentences are true. Notationally we write the usual h |= Σ, to mean all the sentences
of Σ are assigned T by h.
We call Wt the set of all L-expressible facts about the external world. Thus, Wt is consistent at every time t.
This means that for every t there exists an Lw-truth assignment function ht, such that ht|= Wt. We also call the
induced interpretation ht, keeping the same notation. This result does not depend upon the assumption that the world
is stationary. In a stationary world a single htwill work for all t; in a changing world there may be a different ht, but
there will still be some ht, for each t. For a brief discussion of how we intend to approach the issue of a changing
world in future work, see Section 11.
This does not mean that the agent's beliefs about the world are all true, consistent and constant (indeed, we expect
they will contain contradictions and change over time), only that there is some set of true and consistent sentences
that describe the world for every t. We'll detail later how to interpret and model the agent's world-knowledge (this
being the crux of the issue when dealing with inconsistency). First, however, we turn to a model of the agent's meta-
3. A model of the agent's Labeliefs
First of all it is important to note that, even in the case where the agent's beliefs are incomplete, incorrect, or
inconsistent, there is always a complete and consistent theory of those beliefs at the meta level, and this theory can be
Page 5
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
JID:ARTINT AID:2334 /FLA[m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.5(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
expressed using the language La. For instance, if the agent believes both that John is happy (S0
happy (¬S0
not happy" (Bel(¬S0
Now we define an interpretation that models the theory about the agent at the meta level. In what follows, Σ is to
be understood formally as any set of sentences from L; typically we will assume it to be some subset of the agent's
knowledge base, combining beliefs about the world and about the agent, at some time t. Our point of view is that
at any time t the agent may deduce new beliefs from its knowledge base at time t − 1, may add new sentences, for
example from observations, or delete some sentences.
The following definition consists of ten bullet points: the first identifies the domain, the next three provide the
interpretations for the three sorts; the following three provide the interpretations for all the constant symbols; the last
three provide the interpretations for the three predicate symbols. Now keeps track of the time, and indicates the current
time of the agent's internal clock. Contra indicates the existence of a direct contradiction in Σ at some time s ? t. Bel
has the rough meaning "believes that", and states that a given sentence from L was in the agent's KB at some time
s ? t. We define the interpretation HΣ
1) and that John is not
1), the two sentences "the agent believes that John is happy" (Bel(S0
1)) can both be true at the same time.
1)) and "the agent believes that John is
t+1(at time t +1 based on Σ) modeling facts about the agent as follows.
Definition 8. HΣ
t+1is defined as the following interpretation:
• Domain(HΣ
• ∀n ∈ C: HΣ
• ∀σ ∈ D: HΣ
• ∀θ ∈ E: HΣ
• The predicate symbol Now has the following semantics: HΣ
otherwise HΣ
t+1|= ¬Now(s).
• The predicate symbol Contra has the following semantics: HΣ
Contra(σ,s) ∈ Σ or s = t and ∃σ,¬σ ∈ Σ; otherwise HΣ
• The predicate symbol Bel has the following semantics: HΣ
s = t and θ ∈ Σ; otherwise HΣ
t+1) = N ∪SnL.
t+1(S1) = SnLw(the set of propositions about the world).
t+1(S2) = N (all non-negative integers).
t+1(S3) = SnL(the set of sentences representing the agent's knowledge base).
t+1(n) = n.
t+1(σ) = σ.
t+1(θ) = θ.
t+1|= Now(s) ⇐⇒ s = t + 1 and Now(t) ∈ Σ;
t+1|= Contra(σ,s) ⇐⇒ either s < t and
t+1|= ¬Contra(σ,s).
t+1|= Bel(θ,s) ⇐⇒ either s < t and Bel(θ,s) ∈ Σ or
t+1|= ¬Bel(θ,s).
4. A model of the agent's Lwbeliefs
Now we turn to the challenging problem of how to model, at the object level, the agent's beliefs about the world,
given that these beliefs are not just evolving from moment to moment, but that at any given time, they may be
inconsistent. Our scenario is as follows. At time 0 the agent has a finite set of initial beliefs, KB0, about the world. All
the sentence symbols have superscript 0. Then the agent starts to reason about the world using rules of active logic.
This is where the agent may assign, via its apperception function, non-zero superscripts to some sentence symbols to
avoid inconsistency. The agent may also obtain additional information about the world over time through other means,
such as observations.
We will tackle this problem initially in three steps. First, we define a weak notion of consistency allowing for
inconsistency in the agent's knowledge about the world; second, we will define a class of "apperception functions"
intended to capture the intuition that an inconsistent KB will not necessarily seem inconsistent to the agent; and finally,
we will show that there is some apperception function that, when applied to a given set of sentences, always produces
a consistent set. Having shown this, we will proceed in the following sections to define a viable notion of active
consequence, discuss the relation of this notion of consequence to the classical notion of logical consequence, and
prove the soundness of some of the central inference rules of active logic.
Recalling that Σ need not be consistent concerning facts about the world we define a weak version of consistency.
Definition 9. A set of sentences Σ ⊆ SnLis said to be Laconsistent iff Σ ∩SnLais classically consistent.
Page 6
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
AID:2334 /FLA [m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.6(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
Remark 1. From now on, we will assume that Σ is Laconsistent. We also introduce the symbol Γ to refer to the
potentially inconsistent set of Lwsentences in Σ: Γ = Σ ∩SnLw.
We next define an apperception (self-awareness) function for the agent. The notion of an apperception function
is intended to help capture, at least roughly, how the world might seem to an agent with a given belief set Σ. For
a real agent, only some logical consequences are believed at any given time, since it cannot manage to infer all the
potentially infinitely many consequences in a finite time, let alone in the present moment. Moreover, even if the agent
has contradictory beliefs, the agent still has a view of the world, and there will be limits on what the agent will and
won't infer. This is in sharp distinction to the classical notion of a model, where (i) inconsistent beliefs are ruled out
of bounds, since then there are no models, and (ii) all logical consequences of the KB are true in all models.
The task we are addressing, then, is that of finding a notion of semantics that avoids both (i) and (ii) above. Our
idea—via apperception functions—is to suppose that an agent's limited resources apply also to its ability to inspect
its own knowledge. Thus, if S0
iare both in Σ, the agent might not realize, at first, that the two instances of
Siare in fact instances of the same sentence symbol. Thus it might seem to the agent that the world is one in which,
say, S1
i. This allows the agent to have inconsistent beliefs while still having a consistent world
model. Moreover, it allows us to see how an agent with inconsistent beliefs could avoid vacuously concluding any
proposition, and also reason in a directed way, by applying inference rules only to an appropriately apperceived subset
of its beliefs. We hope that this approach can shed some light on focused, step-wise, resource-bounded reasoning more
An example of issue (i) might be Fred, who believes that if John is from the midwest then John is unhappy
world view of such an agent by supposing that at least one of these beliefs is taken to have a different apparent
meaning, one that is not inconsistent with the others (e.g. S0
carefully about all his beliefs, nor realized all of their consequences, and so never noticed that his beliefs entail both
of the implication) he will recognize the contradiction at that time, and remove it (see below).
An example of issue (ii), although one currently beyond what our formalism can represent, might be Andrew Wiles
working on a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT). He did not know, until he had completed his proof, that FLT was
true. Yet he did have among his beliefs sufficient axioms to guarantee FLT as a consequence. So how did the world
seem to him? Along the lines we are suggesting, he viewed some sentences as having possible interpretations different
from what he later discovered to be the case. In effect, apperception functions, collectively, allow for a blurring of the
identities, and hence meanings, of symbols.
The apperception functions we define can make changes only to Γ . An apperception function does not change
Σ −Γ . We use the same notation ap when the apperception function is applied to an occurrence of a sentence symbol,
a sentence, or a set of sentences. We start by defining a function that changes the superscripts of sentence symbols to
0. This is used to recover the original direct contradictions that were modified by the assignment of superscripts.
iand ¬S0
iis true, and so is ¬S2
1), believes that John is from the midwest (S0
2), and believes that John is happy (S0
1). We represent the
1). This might happen because Fred hasn't thought
1and ¬S0
1. Note, however, that in our model, should Fred ever conclude ¬S0
1(or ¬S1
1, from the apperceived version
Definition 10. For any sentence φ ∈ SnLw, let z(φ) be the sentence φ with all superscripts reset to 0. If Σ ⊆ SnLw,
then z(Σ) = {z(φ)|φ ∈ Σ}.
Definition 11. An apperception ap is a function ap:Σ → Σ?where Σ and Σ?are sets of L-sentences. An ap is
represented as a finite sequence of non-negative integers: ?n1,...,np?. The effect of ap on Σ is as follows:
1. Let Σ be a set of L-sentences and let Γ = Σ ∩ Lw. Using the lexicographic order given earlier, let the kth
sentence symbol in Γ be Sj
iis unchanged.
2. ap(Σ) = (Σ −Γ )∪ap(Γ ) (ap does not change Σ −Γ ).
Example 2. Let Σ = {Now(5),Bel(S0
elements lexicographically yields ord(Γ ) = {S1
i. The effect of the ap = ?n1,...,np? is to change Sj
ito Snk
if 1 ? k ? p, otherwise
5}. In this case Γ = {¬S1
5}. Writing the
5}. Consider ap = ?1,3,2,16,7?. Then ap(Σ) =
Page 7
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
JID:ARTINTAID:2334 /FLA[m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.7(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
Infinitely many apperception functions are needed because a finite set of sentences in Lwmay have an arbitrarily
large (finite) number of sentence symbols. However, if Γ is known to contain p occurrences of sentence symbols,
then it suffices to deal only with apperception functions that are sequences of up to p integers as the integers in the
later locations are not applied. There are only finitely many such apperception functions.
The purpose of the apperception functions is to get rid of inconsistencies in Σ. Hence we are interested only in
apperception functions that output consistent sets. The set of apperception functions that do this depends on Σ.
Definition 12. Let AP denote the class of all apperception functions. APΣ= {ap ∈ AP|ap(Σ) is consistent}.
Next we show that APΣis never empty.
Theorem 1. For all Σ, APΣ?= ∅.
Proof. Let ap assignauniquesuperscripttoeachoccurrenceofeverysentencesymbolin Γ .Thennosentencesymbol
appearing in ap(Γ ) is duplicated, hence each can be assigned a truth value independently. So ap(Γ ) is consistent.
Since the remaining sentences in Σ are consistent by assumption, and are in La, ap ∈ APΣ.
5. Active consequence
5.1. The definition of active consequence
At this point we are ready to define the notion of active consequence at time t—the active logic equivalent of
logical consequence. We start by defining the concept of 1-step active consequence as a relationship between sets of
sentences Σ and Θ of L, where Σ ⊆ KBtand Θ is a potential subset of KBt+1. When we define this notion we want
to make sure that Θ contains only sentences required by Σ and the definition of HΣ
t+1. This is the reason for the next
Definition 13. Given Σ and ap ∈ APΣ, define
dcs(Γ ) =?φ ∈ Γ |∃ψ ∈ Γ such that z(φ) = ¬z(ψ) or ¬z(φ) = z(ψ)?,
apz(Γ ) = ap(Γ )−dcs(Γ ).
The meaning of Definition 13 is that we are removing direct contradictions from ap(Γ ) while ignoring the super-
Definition 14. Let Σ,Θ ⊆ SnL. Then Θ is said to be a 1-step active consequence of Σ at time t, written Σ |=1Θ if
and only if ∃ap ∈ APΣsuch that
i. if σ ∈ Θ ∩SnLwthen apz(Γ ) |= σ (σ is a classical logical consequence of apz(Γ )), and
ii. if σ ∈ Θ ∩SnLathen H(Σ−Γ)∪z(Γ )
|= σ.
In this definition, for the sentences of Θ in the agent's language (at the meta level) 1-step active consequence
depends on the interpretation Ht+1. Instead of Γ , we include z(Γ ) to capture all direct contradictions even if the
superscripts have been changed. This also means that the Bel and Contra statements will contain sentence symbols
only with superscript 0. For all the sentences of Θ expressing facts about the world, there must be some apperception
function such that the apperception of Σ (the Lwpart) minus the direct contradictions classically implies these sen-
tences. In the following we define the more general case of n-active consequence for any positive integer n (similarly,
as a result of this definition Θ is a potential part of KBt+n).
Page 8
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
AID:2334 /FLA[m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.8(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
Definition 15.
i. Let Σ,Θ ⊆ SnL. Then Θ is said to be an n-step active consequence of Σ at time t, written Σ |=nΘ, if and only
∃? ⊆ SnL: Σ |=n−1? and ? |=1Θ
ii. We say that Θ is an active consequence of Σ, written Σ |=aΘ, if and only if Σ |=nΘ for some positive integer n.
Next we give some examples to illustrate the concept of active consequence.
Example 3.
i. Let Σ = {S0
ii. Let Σ = {Now(t),S0
easy to see that {S0
Hence Σ |=1Θ.
iii. Let Σ,Θ be as in the previous example with Bel(S0
hence Σ ?|=1Θ. Therefore, for any later time t + k and ? obtained by active consequence from Σ, H?
Bel(S5,t), so Σ ?|=aΘ.
iv. Let Σ = {Now(t)} and Θ = {Now(t + 5)}. Then HΣ
{Now(t +1)}, and we get {Now(t)} |=5{Now(t +5)}, so {Now(t)} |=a{Now(t +5)}. Hence Σ |=aΘ.
v. Let Σ = {S0
Σ |=1?, through the apperception function ap(Σ) = {S1
the definition, regardless of the apperception function applied in this step.
1} and Θ = {Contra(S0
1,t)}. Then Σ |=1Θ.
12} and Θ = {Now(t +1),S0
12} are logical consequences of {S0
12}. Let ap ∈ APΣbe the identity function. It is
5/ ∈ Σ for any i, Ht+1?|= Bel(S0
12}. Also by definition HΣ
t+1|= Now(t +1).
5,t) added to Θ. Since Si
t+1?|= Θ. However, HΣ
1,t + 1)}. We will see that Σ |=2Θ. Let ? = {S1
t+1|= Now(t + 1). So {Now(t)} |=1
1} and Θ = {Contra(S0
1}. Then
1}. Then ? |=1Θ by the second part of
Note that in Example 3.v, it is not the case that Σ |=1{Contra(S0
appearance of the relevant direct contradiction were already in place at time t. This underlines the fact that in active
logic it can take time for consequences to appear in the KB. In the case of Lasentences, this temporal aspect of the
logic is regulated and enforced directly by the semantics. For Lwsentences, it is an artifact of the particular set of
rules that a given active logic agent is equipped with (see Sections 9 and 10 for more discussion of this issue).
Thus, for instance, considering the types of rules in active logic, given a rule like:t: α,α→ϕ,ϕ→ψ
infer ψ in one step from the formulas given at time t; however an agent equipped only with a simple version of modus
ponens, such as that given in Definition 22 (see Section 6.1) would take two time steps to conclude ψ from the same
formulas. Both rules would be sound in active logic (see Definition 16), but a given agent might not be equipped with
both rules (see Section 10). Since our definition of 1-step active consequence for sentences in Lwis based on logical
implication, it is at least as powerful any set of sound syntactical rules could be.
1,t)} even though the conditions for the later
an agent could
5.2. The relationship between active consequence and 1-step active consequence
By our definition of active consequence, Σ |=1Θ implies Σ |=aΘ. We may wonder how much bigger Θ may be
in the latter case. Consider first a very simple situation: Σ = {S0
Here we have Σ |=1Θ and Θ |=1Θ?, hence Σ |=2Θ?. This illustrates that considering Lathere can be additional
sentences for each n-step active consequence for each new value of n. We show that this not does not happen for
sentences of Lw.
Theorem 2. Suppose Σ, Θ ⊆ SnLw. Then Σ |=1Θ ⇔ Σ |=aΘ.
Proof. Since both Σ and Θ are sentences in Lw, it suffices to deal only with sentences in Lw. The ⇒ part follows
from the definition of |=a.
Going in the other direction assume that Σ |=aΘ. By Definition 15 there must be a positive integer n such that
Σ |=nΘ, and that means that there is a ? ⊂ SnLwsuch that Σ |=n−1? and ? |=1Θ. We divide the proof into two
cases depending on the consistency of Σ.
1}, Θ = {Bel(S0
1,t)} and Θ?= {Bel(Bel(S0
1,t),t +1)}.
Page 9
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
JID:ARTINTAID:2334 /FLA [m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.9(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
Suppose that Σ is consistent. Consider what can happen in n−1 steps, that is, Σ |=n−1? where φ ∈ ?. Such a φ
must have been obtained by n − 1 applications of classical logical implication to Σ except that we may also change
sentence symbol superscripts through n − 1 apperception functions, one at each step. The key observation here is
that both the application of classical logical implication and the application of apperception functions are transitive
operations. This means that whatever can be obtained by n − 1 applications of logical implication can already be
obtained by a single application of logical implication, and the same goes for apperception functions. Hence Σ |=1?.
Doing this process again, but using ? |=1Θ, we obtain Σ |=1Θ.
Suppose next that Σ is not consistent. Then in the first step of the implication, that is, to get Σ |=1?, an appercep-
tion function, ap, must have been applied to Σ first, making ap(Σ) consistent (and removing direct contradictions),
only then is the 1-step active consequence determined. Thus Σ |=1? iff ap(Σ) |=1? for some ap ∈ APΣ, where
ap(Σ) is consistent. But then we are back at the previous case where Σ was consistent (where now ap(Σ) is consis-
tent) and the result follows.
Although we proved this result only for sentences in Lw, the same proof works (restricted to sentences of Lw) even
if Σ and Θ contain sentences in La.
5.3. The relationship between classical logical consequence and active consequence
How does classical logical consequence compare to active logic consequence? For sentences in SnLathe two are
incomparable. For consider Σ = {Now(t)}. Clearly, Σ |= Σ, but Σ ?|=aΣ because Now(t) will not be true at any time
after t. Next consider Θ = {Bel(Now(t),t)}. Then Σ ?|= Θ but Σ |=aΘ.
So for the comparison we restrict our attention to SnLw. In classical logic an inconsistent set of sentences logically
implies every sentence, but that is not the case for active consequence. The interesting question is what happens if
Σ ⊆ SnLwis consistent. It seems reasonable to expect active consequence to behave just like logical consequence.
Recalling our theorem from the previous subsection, it suffices to compare only |= and |=1because in this case |=1
and |=agive the same result.
Thus in the consistent case we might expect Σ |= Θ ⇔ Σ |=aΘ. The first implication, Σ |= Θ ⇒ Σ |=aΘ,
holds because we can choose the apperception function to be the identity function. Intuitively the opposite implication
should hold as well. For consider that every given set of consistent sentences has a certain definite set of conclusions
(consequences)—call this the "inferential power" of the set. We would expect this same set in active logic to have
no more inferential power than it has under classical logical consequence. For consider an apperception function that
assigns a different number to every sentence symbol in Σ = {S0
Now the sentence symbol S2can no longer be inferred for any superscript. But this also presents a problem for
the reverse implication. For Σ |=aΘ holds but Σ |= Θ does not. The equivalence holds, however, if we restrict all
sentence symbols to have superscript 0.
2}, e.g., turns it into Θ = {S1
Theorem 3. Let Σ,Θ ⊆ SnLw. If Σ is consistent, Σ = z(Σ), and Θ = z(Θ), then Σ |= Θ ⇔ Σ |=aΘ.
Proof. By Theorem 2 it suffices to prove that Σ |= Θ ⇔ Σ |=1Θ. It follows from Σ = z(Σ) and Θ = z(Θ) that
all superscripts of sentences must be 0. In the application of the definition of 1-step consequence, an apperception
function must be used. Since the apperception function leaves all superscripts at 0, it must be the identity function, so
1-step active consequence is identical to logical consequence, that is, Σ |= Θ ⇔ Σ |=1Θ.
In Section 2.2 we stated that our semantics does not presuppose any one specific set of active logic rules because
it is applicable to many different active logic systems with different rules. This means that we cannot expect to obtain
the kind of completeness theorem for this semantics that one might get for a single specific set of rules. However, it is
clear that 1-step active consequence is very powerful for consistent sets of sentences. It encompasses any set of active
logic rules for SnLw. In that sense it is the limiting case for all possible sets of such active logic rules and provides
an approximation to a completeness result. In the following, we write ? for derivability in active logic, instead of the
vertical notation commonly used there. See the next section for the standard vertical notation.
Theorem 4. Suppose that Σ,Θ ⊆ SnLw, Σ = z(Σ), Θ = z(Θ), Σ is consistent and Σ and Θ are finite.
Page 10
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
AID:2334 /FLA[m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.10(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
(a) Let ? represent the derivability relation for any active logic. If Σ ? Θ then Σ |=aΘ.
(b) If Σ |=aΘ then there is an active logic with derivability relation ? such that Σ ? Θ.
Proof. (a) If Σ ? Θ then every φ ∈ Θ must logically follow from Σ, hence Σ |=1Θ, so Σ |=aΘ.
(b) If Σ |=aΘ then for each φ ∈ Θ introduce a (valid) active logic rule stating that Σ ? φ. For the active logic
defined by these rules (for SnLw), Σ ? Θ.
6. Sound and unsound inferences in active logic
At this point we consider possible inference rules for active logic. We start with some notes about the syntax of
active logic rules. Because active logic is a step logic, we always precede both the antecedent and the consequent
(which are divided by a horizontal line) with an indication of the time, thus:
t: antecedent
t +1: consequent
The antecedent can be any of the following:
• a single formula, e.g. θ, or Now(t)
• any set of formulas separated by commas, e.g. θ,θ → σ
• anysetofformulasmeetingsomespecifiedconditions,andrepresentedbyasinglecapitalletter,withasemi-colon
between the capital letter and the conditions e.g. Σ; θ ∈ Σ
• any set of formulas representing the database of an agent at a specific time. This will be represented by KBt, and
may also specify conditions using the same convention as above.
The consequent can be any of the following:
• a single formula, e.g. θ, or Now(t)
• any set of formulas separated by commas, e.g. θ,θ → σ.
Now we define the notion of a-sound inference.
Definition 16. An active sound (a-sound) inference is one in which the consequent is a 1-step active consequence of
the antecedent.
Recall that (1-step) active consequence is defined between sets of sentences. However, in accordance with the
syntax defined above, we will omit the set notation symbols { and }.
6.1. Some active-sound inference rules
For all six rules given here, a-soundness follows directly from the definitions. We prove the last as an illustration.
Definition 17. If Now(t) ∈ KBtthen the timing inference rule is defined as follows:
t: Now(t)
t +1: Now(t +1)
Definition 18. If ϕ,¬ϕ ∈ KBt, where ϕ ∈ SnLw, then the direct contradiction inference rule is defined as follows:
t: ϕ,¬ϕ
t +1: Contra(ϕ,t)
Definition 19. If ϕ ∈ KBt, where ϕ ∈ SnL, then the positive introspection inference rule is defined as follows:
t: ϕ
t +1: Bel(ϕ,t)
Page 11
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
JID:ARTINTAID:2334 /FLA[m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.11(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
Definition 20. If ϕ / ∈ KBt, where ϕ ∈ SnL, then the negative introspection inference rule is defined as follows:
t: KBt;ϕ / ∈ KBt
t +1: ¬Bel(ϕ,t)
Definition 21. If ϕ ∈ SnLsuch that ϕ ∈ KBt, ¬ϕ / ∈ KBt, ϕ ?= Now(t), and ϕ is not a contradiction, then the inheritance
inference rule is defined as follows:
t: ϕ
t +1: ϕ
Definition 22. Let Θ = {ϕ,ϕ → ψ} ⊆ (KBt∩ SnLw) such that Θ is consistent. Assume ¬ϕ / ∈ KBtand ¬(ϕ → ψ) / ∈
KBt(see Section 6.3 for more on this restriction), then the active modus ponens inference rule is defined as follows:
t: ϕ,ϕ → ψ
t +1: ψ
Theorem 5. The rules given in Definitions 17–22 are a-sound.
for active modus ponens (Definition 22):
Proof. Use an apperception function which is the identity on Θ and assigns a unique different superscript to any other
symbol in KBt.
6.2. Active-unsound inference rules
We examine a number of instances of classically unsound inference rules, and get the expected intuitive results that
these inferences are also active-unsound. In all cases ϕ and ψ are arbitrary sentences of L.
Definition 23. We call this first rule the ϕ implies ψ, or ϕ → ψ rule.
t: ϕ
t +1: ψ
Theorem 6. The ϕ → ψ inference rule is not a-sound (is a-unsound).
Proof. Let ϕ = S0
would mean that ψ classically follows from ϕ, and that is false.
1and let ψ = ¬(S0
1). Then ψ is not an active consequence of ϕ, because by Theorem 3, this
Definition 24. We call this next rule the ϕ implies not ϕ, or ϕ-not-ϕ rule: We assume that ϕ is a consistent formula.
t: ϕ
t +1: ¬ϕ
Theorem 7. The ϕ-not-ϕ inference rule is a-unsound
Proof. Let ϕ = S0
1and apply Theorem 3.
Interestingly, although the ϕ-not-ϕ inference rule is a-unsound in general (with respect to the big language L),
there is one special instance in which it is sound, namely:
t: Now(t)
t +1: ¬Now(t)
This further underlines the specialstatus of timeand the Now() predicatein activelogic; this result would obviously
not be classically sound.
Page 12
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
AID:2334 /FLA [m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.12(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
However, one rule that is classically sound, but a-unsound, is the explosive rule. This shows that active logic is a
paraconsistent logic, something we consider one of its advantages over classical formalisms.
Definition 25. Let Σ ⊆ SnLwbe inconsistent. Let ψ ∈ SnLw. We define the explosive rule with respect to the language
Lwas follows.
t: Σ;Inconsistent(Σ)
t +1: ψ
Theorem 8. The explosive inference rule is a-unsound.
Proof. Let ψ be ¬(S0
Hence ap(Σ) ?|=1ψ. By Theorem 2 the result follows.
1). No apperception function ap that turns Σ into a consistent set can logically derive ψ.
6.3. Inconsistent KBs, apperception functions and the application of a-sound rules
We noted above that there can be no official catalog of rules for active logic; any a-sound rule can qualify, and a
given active logic agent may be equipped with any number of these rules (see Section 9 for more on this). However,
the fact that a-soundness is defined in terms active consequence, which is itself defined in terms of apperception
functions, means that not every a-sound rule will be available for use in every situation. More specifically, whether
or not there are direct contradictions in Σ = KBt, the apperception function may change which rules can and cannot
be applied for that Σ.2(We list only Γ in the examples below.) Let Γ = {S0
contradiction, the active modus ponens rule would not apply (S0
Next, consider a case where active modus ponens does apply, namely, let Γ = {S0
derive S0
using an a-sound notational variant of the classically sound rule3
2}. Because of the direct
1and ¬S0
1would be removed from the KB).
2. A different possible consequence is {S0
2}. So we can
2by using an ap that only changes the superscript of ¬S0
ψ → α
and using an ap that only changes the superscript of S0
But note that the set {S0
function that would allow this set to be derived. Thus we cannot necessarily combine a-sound rules and guarantee that
the result is an active consequence. (The problem exists only for rules involving Lw.) This also underlines the fact
once again that apperception functions can limit the inferential power of a given set of sentences. For a discussion of
the practical effects of this limitation, see Sections 9 and 10.
This concludes the presentation of the active logic semantics. In the next two sections (7 and 8) we will discuss
some of the general properties of active logic that follow from its semantics, and compare active logic to other related
work. After that, in Sections 9 and 10, we will discuss some of the practical issues involved with using active logic in
real-world reasoning agents.
3} is not an active consequence of Γ because there is no single apperception
7. General properties of active logic
One of the original motivations for active logic was the need to design formalisms for reasoning about an approach-
ing deadline; for this use it is crucial that the reasoning take into account the ongoing passage of time as that reasoning
proceeds. Thus, active logic reasons one step at a time, updating its belief about the current time at each step, using
rules like the timing rule given in Definition 17.
2In fact, it is generally true of apperception functions that they will determine which rules are applicable in a given KB at a given time; however,
in a consistent KB, there will always be an eligible apperception function that makes no alterations to the KB, thus not changing which rules apply.
Thus, the remarks below are limited to the case of an inconsistent KB.
3While this rule can be written so as to be a-sound, it is rather a dangerous rule in a non-monotonic logic, and it would probably not be advisable
to include it among the catalog of rules with which a practical active logic agent is equipped.
Page 13
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
JID:ARTINTAID:2334 /FLA[m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.13(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
This step-wise, time-aware approach gives active logic fine control over what it does, and does not, derive and
inherit at each step; for instance, Now(t) is not inherited at time step t + 1. To "inherit" P is, roughly speaking,
to assert P at time t + 1 just in case it was believed at time t. However, in a temporal, non-monotonic formalism,
what is justified now may not be justified later. For a simple example, consider that a certain observation at time t
may justify the conclusion that it is raining at time t, and it may be reasonable to continue to believe this at time
t + 1 (i.e. to inherit the belief). However, at some point in time, t + n, neither the original observation, nor the
inherited belief can be considered justification for the continued belief that it is raining. Thus, although inheriting is
a reasonable default behavior, there will be conditions and limits.4This is accomplished by special inheritance rules
like Definition 21. Note in particular the conditions governing that rule, conditions that can be tailored for different
agents and circumstances.
Such step-wise control over inference gives active logic the ability to explicitly track the individual steps of a
deduction. Thus, for instance, an inference rule can refer to the results of all inferences up until now—i.e. through
time t—as it computes the subsequent results (for time t + 1). This allows an active logic to reason, for example,
about its own (past) reasoning; and in particular about what it has not yet concluded. Moreover, this can be performed
quickly, since it involves little more than a lookup of the current knowledge base (see, e.g. Definition 20). Although the
complexity of this operation is low—O(n)—it is nevertheless the case that if the KB is allowed to grow indefinitely,
the operation will take increasing time. Currently beliefs older than some arbitrary threshold are removed from active
memory and written to a searchable log file. However, we are investigating various more intelligent methods for
selective "forgetting".
reasoning of real-world agents. The reason that determining what one does not know—otherwise known as negative
introspection—is simple in active logic is a direct result of the practical acknowledgment that any real agent is limited
to reasoning only with whatever formulas (wffs) it has been able to come up with so far, rather than with implicit but
not yet performed inferences. Thus, determining if a given formula P is known is not a question of seeing if P is a
consequence of one's current beliefs, but only a question of seeing if P is actually present in the KB. This approach is
especially important to the issue of performing consistency checks before accepting new formulas into the KB. After
all, before accepting P, one may well want to know whether P is consistent with one's current beliefs. In general, P
is not consistent with the KB if ¬P can be derived from KB. However, it is not in general possible to know, for any
given formula if that formula is derivable from current beliefs, without actually going through the required deductions
to prove it. That could take a great deal of time—more time than a typical agent will have before deciding to accept
P. Cutting this process down to a simple KB look-up of ¬P, then, is an important practical simplification. So, instead
of looking for arbitrary contradictions to P, we are only looking for direct contradictions (i.e. ¬P).5
But won't this practical simplification mean that active logic KBs are more likely to become inconsistent? That is
certainly a possibility, and yet, insofar as (a) contradictions are an inevitable part of living in and reasoning about the
real world, and (b) the consistency of complex KBs is practically impossible to determine or maintain, then it seems
a better bet to focus less on maintaining consistency, and more on an ability to reason effectively in the presence of
contradictions, taking action with respect to them only when they become revealed in the course of inference (which
itself might be directed toward finding contradictions, to be sure).
This is where the other central features of active logic—its step-wise control over inference, and the built-in ability
to refer to individual steps of reasoning—come into play, making active logic a natural formalism for detecting and
reasoning about contradictions and their causes. For as soon as a contradiction reveals itself—that is, as soon as P
and ¬P are both present in the KB—it is possible to "capture" it, preventing further reasoning using the contradictory
formulas as premises (and thereby preventing any explosion of wffs), while at the same time marking their presence,
to allow further consideration of the cause of the contradiction. Current implementations of active logic incorporate a
"conflict-recognition" inference rule like Definition 18 for this purpose.
Through the use of such rules, direct contradictions can be recognized as soon as they occur, and further reasoning
can be initiated to repair the contradiction, or at least to adopt a strategy with respect to it, such as simply avoiding
the use of either of the contradictory formulas for the time being. Unlike in truth maintenance systems [15,16] where
4Inheritance and disinheritance are directly related to belief revision [23] and to the frame problem [11,31]; see [34] for further discussion.
5This discussion is not meant to imply that, if ¬P is found in the KB, that the agent will necessarily, for that reason, reject P, for there may be
good reason to reject ¬P, instead.
Page 14
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
AID:2334 /FLA [m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.14(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
a separate process resolves contradictions using justification information, in active logic the contradiction detection
and handling [32] occur in the same reasoning process. In fact, the Contra predicate is a meta-predicate: it is about
the course of reasoning itself (and yet is also part of that same evolving history).
Thus, speaking somewhat more broadly, active logic is a paraconsistent logic that achieves its paraconsistency in
virtue of possessing two simultaneously active (and interactive) modes of reasoning, which might be called circum-
spective and literal. In literal mode, the reasoning agent is simply working with, and deriving the consequences of,
its current beliefs. In circumspective mode, the reasoning agent is reasoning about its beliefs, noting, for instance,
that it has derived a contradiction, and deciding what to do about that. It is important to active logic that these are
not separate, isolated modes, but interactive and part of the same overall reasoning process. Thus, for instance, the
(circumspective) derivation of Contra is triggered by the (literal) derivation of P and ¬P, and reasoning with Contra
happens alongside reasoning about other matters. Likewise, reasoning about a contradiction may eventually result in
the reinstatement of one of the conclusions, P or ¬P, to be carried forward and reasoned with in literal mode. It is pre-
cisely this ongoing interaction between literal and circumspective modes, between reasoning and self-monitoring, that
allows active logic to avoid the pitfalls of explosive logics, and makes it more appropriate to the needs of real-world
8. Comparison with related work
Active logic is primarily related to two bodies of work—work on temporal logics, and work on paraconsistent
logics. We will treat each of these subjects in turn.
8.1. Temporal logics
Temporal logics—logical formalisms explicitly allowing for the representation of temporal information—were
introduced by Prior (under the name of Tense Logic) in a series of writings between 1957 and 1969 [43–45]. Pnueli
established the relevance of tense logic for understanding the runtime behavior of programs [38]. Such temporal logics
are modal, with operators for notions such as the future truth of a predicate. A first-order approach to reasoning about
time was employed by Allen [1], with expressions such as Holds(A,t) to mean A is true at time t; Allen and others
made major strides in the use of such formalisms (so-called action logics) in AI. Part of the effect of these latter efforts
was to connect temporal logic to belief logics, i.e., logics for representing information about an agent that plans and
acts in a dynamic world. Thus action logics typically have temporal aspects, since the passage of time is of central
importance to the planning and carrying out of actions; see for instance [22].
Another central feature of most such logics is a treatment of the frame problem. Definition 21 (the inheritance rule)
might be considered a kind of frame axiom. While it does not quite assert that φ remains true despite an action having
occurred, it has a similar effect: it says that φ will remain believed unless there is a reason not to believe it, such as
might happen if an action is known to have negated φ.
Various logics of action and belief have been extensively studied for as long as AI has existed [28–31]. Typically,
the formalism is designed to represent the formation of an agent's beliefs (including its beliefs about the results of
actions) based on a starting set of information (initial beliefs, or axioms). However, since belief-formation in any
real-world agent must occur as a process in time, it is natural to consider a logic in which not only is time represented
(i.e., one is able to express things about time, as in a temporal logic) but also the passage of time is represented
as an evolving process in which the "present" time moves forward during belief formation. Thus the agent has a
certain set of beliefs "now", and another set at a later "now". But if the logic is to be used by the agent, then its own
evolving notion of what time it is must be factored into the formalism as well. This is where active logics come in: an
agent/temporal logic with a twist: an evolving now and corresponding time-sensitive inference rules.
Active logic is not the only formalism to consider time in this way. For instance, SNePS [50], especially as applied
to the Embodied Cassie project [49], incorporates an indexical, evolving-time variable NOW. Cassie, a natural-
language-using autonomous robot, uses this variable to track the passage of time, allowing it to do such things as
appropriately alter verb tenses when discussing present or past actions. Cassie's temporal awareness also plays a role
in time-sensitive planning projects like maintaining its battery and remediating unexploded land mines (in simulation).
The motivations for including such an evolving "now" in Cassie are quite similar to the motivations for including
one in active logic. Ismail and Shapiro write: "[E]mbodied cognitive agents should ... act in and reason about a
Page 15
Please cite this article in press as: M.L. Anderson et al., Active logic semantics for a single agent in a static world, Artificial Intelligence (2007),
JID:ARTINTAID:2334 /FLA[m3SC+; v 1.86; Prn:7/01/2008; 19:09] P.15(1-19)
M.L. Anderson et al. / Artificial Intelligence ••• (••••) •••–•••
changing world, using reasoning in the service of acting and acting in the service of reasoning. Second, they should
be able to communicate their beliefs, and report their past, ongoing, and future actions in natural language. This
requires a representation of time ..." [27]. However, there are some significant differences in the nature of the "now"
incorporated into each formalism, and how it can therefore be used.
Perhaps the biggest difference is that for the SNePS-based agent Cassie, NOW is a meta-logical variable, rather
than a logical term fully integrated into the SNePS semantics. The variable NOW is implemented so that it does,
indeed, change over time (and, in particular, changes whenever Cassie acts in any way, including by reasoning), but
this change is the result of actions triggering an external time-variable update. In active logic, in contrast, reasoning
itself implies the passage of time. Perhaps in part because of this difference, SNePS is a monotonic logic, whereas
active logic is non-monotonic, leveraging the facts that beliefs are had at times, and beliefs can be had about beliefs,
to easily represent such things as "I used to believe P, but now I believe ¬P" using the Bel operator. SNePS is also
able to represent beliefs about beliefs, but there is no indication that this ability is leveraged by SNePS to guide belief
updates. Rather, all Cassie's beliefs are about states holding over time, so that belief change is effected by allowing
beliefs to expire, rather than by formally retracting them. This is a strategy similar to that employed by the situation
calculus (which does not itself incorporate a changing Now term) [31]. Finally, although SNePS is a paraconsistent
logic, it is so in virtue of the fact that contradictions imply nothing at all, whereas in active logic contradictions imply
Contra, a meta-level operator that can trigger further reasoning.
8.2. Paraconsistent logics
As mentioned in the introduction, the term paraconsistent logic is applied to logics that are not explosive. Another
way to look at this concept is to consider that classical logic is so averse to inconsistency that it cannot distinguish
between local inconsistency, where for some formula A both A and ¬A hold, and global inconsistency, where for all
formulas A both A and ¬A hold. So in a paraconsistent logic, local inconsistency does not imply global inconsis-
tency. For various reasons, including philosophical issues, the intrinsic interest of investigating paraconsistency, and
particularly the increasing number of applications involving inconsistencies, there has been growing interest in this
field, including several books, numerous papers, and three World Congresses on Paraconsistency: [5] and [12] are the
Proceedings of the first two (see also [13] for a historical survey).
As noted in the survey paper [24], paraconsistency may be achieved in several different ways. Modifying the
axioms or rules is one technique. Another method stays within the framework of classical logic by the use of maximal
consistent subsets of formulas. Consider an inconsistent set of formulas Γ . There must always be some subsets of Γ
that are consistent (for example, ∅ is consistent) hence there must be maximal consistent subsets of Γ . In this method
A is deduced from Γ if A is deduced classically from all maximal consistent subsets of Γ [48]. Some researchers use
additional criteria to find preferred consistent subsets and work with those [8].
Another technique [7] extends the set of classical truth values from {True,False} to a larger set. Usually, the
set of truth values is given an algebraic structure, typically a lattice. Perhaps the best-known of these is the lattice
FOUR = {True,False,Both,Neither} where Both stands for an inconsistency. A fourth approach extends classical
logic by the addition of modal or metalevel operators. Modal logic has an operator for a formula to be possible (true
in some world) and necessary (true in all worlds) where worlds are selected in some way. Both a formula A and its
negation ¬A may be possible because they are true in different worlds, but that does not mean that all formulas are
Consider now how active logic fits into the classification given above. In active logic the rules of inference are
limited, and are based on the passage of time. Also the language contains the meta-level operator Contra to indicate
contradictory statements. Hence active logic combines two of the methods above to achieve paraconsistency.
8.3. Other related work
Several other interesting frameworks exist that encompass many logical systems in a uniform manner. We briefly
discuss two such frameworks here.
A Labelled Deductive System (LDS) [20] is a logical reasoning system employing both formulas and annotations
for those formulas, called labels. The labels can have various contents with effects on the deductions. For instance,
if the label indicates that one formula is better supported by evidence than another, then deductions using the better


text:
Drones Topics
Democracy Now! stories, posts and pages that relate to Drones
- A group of Pakistanis met in Islamabad late last month to discuss the impact of U.S. drone strikes in their communities. One of the attendees was a 16-year-old boy named Tariq Aziz, who had volunteered to learn photography to begin documenting drone strikes near his home. Within 72 hours of the meeting, Aziz was killed in a U.S. drone strike. His 12-year-old cousin was also killed in the Oct. 31 attack. "People were aware of the threat to...November 07, 2011 | Story
- The Wall Street Journal is reporting the CIA has made a series of secret concessions in its drone campaign after military and diplomatic officials complained large strikes were damaging the fragile U.S. relationship with Pakistan. Meanwhile, a trial is underway in Syracuse, New York, of 38 protesters arrested in April at the New York Air National Guard base at Hancock Field. The defendants were protesting the MQ-9 Reaper drones, which the...November 04, 2011 | Story
- MIT Professor Emeritus Noam Chomsky, the world-renowned linguist and political dissident, spoke Monday night at Barnard College in New York City about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, just hours before Israel and Hamas completed a historic prisoner exchange. "I think [Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit] should have been released a long time ago. But there's something missing from this whole story. There's no pictures of Palestinian...October 18, 2011 | Story
- The United States has confirmed the killing of the radical Yemeni-American cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, in northern Yemen. The Obama administration says al-Awlaki is one of the most influential al-Qaeda operatives on its "most wanted" list. In response to news of al-Awlaki's death, constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald and others argue the assassination of U.S. citizens without due process has now has become a reality. "One...September 30, 2011 | Story
- A new report from a team of British and Pakistani journalists finds one U.S. drone strike occurs every four days in Pakistan. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed as many as 775 civilians, including 168 children, since 2004. The report also challenges a recent claim by President Obama's top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, that no civilians have been killed in the drone attacks for...August 15, 2011 | Story
Drones, Aid and CIA Contractor Raymond Davis: Ali Dayan Hasan on Pakistani Attitudes Toward the U.S.In part two of our interview with Human Rights Watch Asia senior researcher Ali Dayan Hasan, he describes the work Asia Times reporter Syed Saleem Shahzad was doing when he was kidnapped, murdered and tortured in May, allegedly by state security forces. He also discusses the impact of drones, U.S. aid, and the case of CIA contractor Raymond Davis on Pakistani attitudes toward the United States. [includes rush transcript]June 29, 2011 | Web Exclusive
Show for Nov 26, 2014
More Than 40 Arrested in Ferguson on 2nd Night of Protest
Protesters March, Block Highways in 170 Cities Over Police Abuse
Obama Calls for Calm in Ferguson
Darren Wilson: "I Know I Did My Job Right"
Black Friday Boycott over Ferguson to Coincide with Wal-Mart Strikes
Syrian Airstrikes Kill 95 People in Raqqa
Gunmen Kill 3 Pakistani Polio Workers, Driver
U.S. Drone Strike Kills 7 in Northwest Pakistan
Yemen: U.S. Commandos Lead Raid to Rescue Hostages
Nigeria: Double Suicide Bombing Kills Dozens
8th Doctor Infected with Ebola in Sierra Leone; Burial Workers Dump Corpses in Protest over Pay
Flournoy Withdraws from Running to Replace Hagel
Report: U.S. to Keep More Troops in Afghanistan Than Promised
U.N. Resolution on Spying Weakened by Pressure from U.S., Allies
EPA to Issue New Limits on Ozone Air Pollution
Obama Admin Sued over Leasing of Land to Coal Firms
Obama Vows to Veto Tax Deal Which Favors Corporations
CDC: Half of People with HIV in the U.S. Not Receiving Treatment

subset: commoncrawl


text:
|Search | About | Preferences | Interact | Help
|150 million books. 1 search engine.
by Cooper, James Fenimore
Publisher:Random House Books for Young Readers
The success of the recent 20th Century Fox feature film, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, will ensure wide interest in this title--especially among reluctant readers. Bringing the French and Indian war to vivid life, the succinct retellings, short chapters, and big, easy-to-read type distinguish this Step-Up Classic from other adaptations of classic stories. Illustrated.
Search under way...
Search complete.
New books: 1 - 25 of 65
Used books: 1 - 25 of 157


text:
Are you ready to have haunting nightmares starring a creepy animatronic doll? Say hello to Chuckesme.
Chuckesme is the not-so-affectionate name given to the animatronic doll that was supposed to stand in for Bella and Edward's daughter, Renesmee, in "Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 2." Director Bill Condon wanted to use practical effects rather than CGI to depict the girl -- whose vampire/human hybrid nature makes her mature much faster than a regular baby -- in order to make her interactions with cast members seem more lifelike.
Unfortunately for Condon and co., that decision turned out to be terrible. The doll is absolutely horrifying -- hence its "Chucky"-referencing nickname -- and was ultimately scrapped and replaced by special effects in the theatrical version.
In an interview included in the special features of the new "Twilight Forever" Blu-ray box set, actress Nikki Reed, who looks absolutely terrified holding the doll, asks "the whole world to forgive me" for being involved with the doll's creation. And who can blame her? Even filmmakers called the doll "grotesque."
While we're glad Chuckesme wasn't in the finished product, we've got a bone to pick with whoever cobbled together those special features. Thanks for creeping us out forever, dude. *Shudder*
[via Movies.com]
This Creepy Animatronic 'Twilight' Baby Will Haunt Your Dreams (VIDEO)
Are you ready to have haunting nightmares starring a creepy animatronic doll? Say hello to Chuckesme.
Around The Web:
Twilight Forever: The Complete Saga | Official Site
Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 2 Trailer 2 (HD) - YouTube
This Creepy Animatronic Baby Almost Starred In 'Twilight: Breaking Dawn'
'Twilight: Breaking Dawn' Almost Starred This Animatronic Baby, Which Is What ...
Creepy Twilight Doll: Cast Reveals Disturbing Animatronic Prop "Chuckesmee ...
Fone Finds
- The Cast of 'Hocus Pocus': Then & Now - POPSUGAR
- 16 Things We Learned From Dave Chappelle's GQ Interview - HitFix
- 10 Failed TV Shows From Successful Showrunners - Rotten Tomatoes
- Honest Trailer: 'Maleficent' - ScreenJunkies
- Make Your Own Aaron Sorkin Monologue - Vulture
- Why Thanksgiving Is Just Like 'The Hunger Games' - POPSUGAR
- The 13 Best 'Assembling the Team' Movies - Vulture
- The Best Movie Kisses of 2014 - POPSUGAR
- Ranking 11 Movie Bosses From Amazing to Horrible - POPSUGAR
- Watch the Star-Lord Dance-Off in This 'Guardians' Outtake - ScreenCrush


text:
Parents & Families
Welcome to the Southern Vermont College Parents Home Page. Parents and families are an integral part of a student's College experience. Together with Southern Vermont College faculty, staff and administrators the parents and families of our students provide the support, encouragement and understanding that enables us to challenge minds and change lives.
Attention Parents!
Students can now receive a tax credit for their books and course materials!. Under the newly created American Opportunity Tax Credit, textbooks and other course material expenses–along with tuition and fees incurred in 2009 and 2010 not covered by scholarships or grants–may be claimed as a tax credit on that year's tax return. Students may be eligible for a tax credit up to $2,500. It is important to keep a record of all expenses to be eligible. For more information, see http://www.textbookaid.org/.
Course and Final Exam Schedules
Parent Quick Links
- Frequently Asked Questions
- Financial Aid
- Academic Calendar
- Events Calendar
- Support SVC
- Pay Student Account Online
E-mail Quick Links
- President
- Admissions
- Provost
- Campus Safety
- Residence Life
- Career Development
- Communications
- Financial Aid
- Student Accounts
Featured Faculty
Instructor Sandra Fleischmann, MSN, RN-BC, Division of Nursing
Read more
Student Profile
Haley Omasta
Through a grant, she attended the Insight Dubai Conference. Read more about Haley Omasta
Campus Events
Campus News
- President's HUFF POST Blog: "When Does a College's Obligation to Its Students End?"
- Mount Anthony is First School in Vermont to Launch National College Application Campaign
- President's Comment in CBS Moneywatch on a 3-year degree
- David Rees Evans, Ph.D., Named Next SVC President
- President's HUFF POST Blog: "...Why Education is Failing Our Students"
- TIME Online "Five Best Ideas of the Day" Links to SVC Co-authored Article
- SVC Co-Authored article in INSIDE HIGHER Ed: "Graduation Shouldn't Be Endpoint"


text:
7 out of 10 | Shauna stayed March 14, 2014
"Front Door"
"The main concern was the amount of people standing in front of the hotel doors smoking. There was a sign that clearly said must be 25 ft away. There was no on inforcing this. Perhaps an ashtray and regular enforcement might make the enterence more appealing and less scary to other patrons. My breakfast in Joanna's Cafe was excellent."
2 out of 10 | Almerante stayed October 05, 2013
"Strange Particles on the Floor"
"I booked the Marlborough Hotel online because the price was so tempting and so delicious, I grabbed my credit card and without hesitation, I booked it in lightning speed, wantonly and wantingly to taste the cheap yet magnificent experience that is the Marlborough Hotel, so grandiosely photographed on the website. The night has come so tired as a log, balanced with quiet exhilaration to spend the night in the hotel. Because the overnight stay was just CAD80.00, parking wasn't available. We needed to pay CAD10.00 at an adjacent parking lot. Me and my friend were NOT greeted by the doormen (3 of them just chuckling by the door, holding their cellphones), opened the door by ourselves and headed for the check-in counter. A lovely Filipino receptionist checked us in and wished us great night stay, which we needed so badly. Upon arrival in the room, we immediately felt the carpeted floor so gristly and grainy, as if it wasn't vacuumed since the 1970's. At close inspection, we realized that the particles were whitish, almost sandy in appearance, that covered almost the entire room. We have also found pieces of bobby pins, small plastic wrappers, used papers in drawers and smudgy bathroom walls and whatever more unknown particles, fluid or gunk hidden elsewhere in that room. Because of extreme lethargy, we just hurried our night shower and toothbrushing extravaganza. The water took almost about 15 minutes to heat up, which is understandable if it's in the 1960's. The towels were stinky, but luckily, we brought our own towels. I attempted to use the hair dryer, but when I turned it on, hundreds of electrical sparks came out the nozzle, I panicked in fear! Our beds caught us in sheer comfort and softness and joy... but not for long! The sheets, and pillowcases smelled like someone has used it the night before! It smelled like someone else's sweat on there! The electric outlets are so unsafe, we were so scared to charge our phones on that Dollarama extension cord. They use a 2 pronged electric outlet, and just let the third ground prong from the alarm clock to just stick out. We just took everything in, without calling for staff to change the sheets or vacuum the floor as we were too spent to lift the phone. We slept in fear and in constant disruption by the howling baby next room, the noisy couple arguing in the hallway. The walls are not sound proofed! Horrible night, but thanks to lethargy, we were able to pass the night. We had a great breakfast from there cafe. Great breakfast means wide selection and large servings and overflow of tasty coffee. I was so happy with breakfast, so as my friend. Over-all, I wouldn't recommend this place, it's almost like that Gates of Hell in Turkmenistan."
1 out of 10 | Kaleigh stayed July 14, 2013
"I was in the room for 10 mins"
"It was awful! I lasted 10 mins and then checked out, the room was stained, ripped up, muggy, smelly and found pubic hairs on our towels! It was a nightmare! And the elevators look like there about to fall apart! The front enterance and the front doors was full of what looked like homeless people and it was very dirty!"
7 out of 10 | Mohamad stayed August 31, 2012
"good hotel, convenient location, close to downtown"
"good location, good customer service, good rate, good basic services internet connection not steady, no free parking, house keeping could be better/improved."
9 out of 10 | Verified Guest stayed December 13, 2010
"Just about the shuttle and too far from hotel and the Taxi's are to high from the rates."
7 out of 10 | Jamie stayed July 20, 2010
"A fair stay at a fair pricd"
"With the exception of the questionable characters loitering out front of the hotel the marlborough met my expectations. For the price, I think it wad fine. The room was reasonable, but the handle was a bit tricky. If there's one comment worth making, it's that the breakfast that's included in the room cost su kes!"
2 out of 10 | Maria stayed August 16, 2009
"During our short stay, we switched rooms 3 times. First time, the carpet in the room #415 was soaked wet in 20% of its surface. Second time, the room #604 had stinky contaminated carpet and a serious problem of ventilation and hunidity, also had bed bugs and I have pictures to prove it; i have 23 bites in my left leg. finnaly we were set inthe suite #412 to compensate the damage, but it was already too late. We talk to Mike, mannager in duty and to calm down our anger he gave us 2 free nights for whenever we want to go back, but: do we realy want to go back to that hotel? I dont think so."
5 out of 10 | Brent stayed June 11, 2006
"The cleaning staff threw my contact lense case in the garbage, so I had to throw away a pair early and use a new pair. The restraunt that is in the hotel has very good food but the service was the worst i've ever seen. People who sat down after us got served well before we did. I would not recommend to try the restraunt."
3 out of 10 | Verified Guest stayed June 07, 2006
"a person has to pay for parking which was across the street as well as I requested a smoking room and they didn't have one stayed the one night though"
2 out of 10 | Barbara stayed May 01, 2006
"Being from Winnipeg quite a few years ago - we thought the Ramada Marlborough would be a great spot. It was a grand hotel at one time. Now it is a mangy hotel in the core district with quite a few unsavory characters hanging around. We had to move from the second floor to the fifth floor as the candy smell they used to freshen the carpets was overwhelming and nauseating. We were to stay 5 days - left after 2. Would never recommend this hotel to anyone!"
9 out of 10 | Julie stayed July 15, 2005
"Every one in the hotel was more than helpful and had time to say hello, even though they were busy.It was nice to be greated every morning and evening with a smile. Yes i would stay again. Thanks to all staff."
7 out of 10 | Jodi stayed April 27, 2005
"We had a problem with the parking. Felt it should be complimentary. Plus even with our parking pass we still received a ticket. A very unpleasant discussion took place with the attendant and finally they relented and took back the ticket. How do we know for sure that the ticket will be taken care of? And why should this have ocurred in the first place. It was a rather bad ending to what I would say was a great stay at your hotel. I strongly recommend you consider making your parking complimentary. You'd be surprised how something so little can avoid so much aggravation, and how much it would be appreciated. Jodi Reichmuth"
8 out of 10 | John stayed July 05, 2004
"Because I reserved the rooms on the Internet I got the feeling from the front desk staff that I was a second class citizen. Otherwise it was a nice place. I would also like to compliment the night security officer. He seemed very professional and dedicated."
5 out of 10 | Mattthew stayed May 13, 2004
"We did not have a hair dryer or ironing facilities in our room. We did not recieve a reciept to reclaim GST although we requeted it."


text:
Select () or exclude () categories to narrow your recipe search.
As you select categories, the number of matching recipes will update.
Find exactly what you're looking for with the web's most powerful recipe filtering tool.
Prep Time:
Cook Time:
15 mins
45 mins
Had this at a friend's house. Excellent recipe. Would also be wonderful with VODKA. :)
Units: US | Metric
Serving Size: 1 (457 g)
Servings Per Recipe: 4
Every recipe, menu, tip and how-to is right here, at your service.


text:
- Champions League
- September 16, 2014, 16:47
Pep Guardiola has stated no Bayern Munich player wants to join Manchester United despite the deposed champions having been interested in Thomas Müller(...)
- Soccer
- May 26, 2014, 12:00
The weekend before last, the two teams who contested last year's Champions League final met in the German Cup Final in Berlin. FC Bayern agains(...)
- Soccer
- May 19, 2014, 01:00
Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola took his season title tally to four when his team clinched the German Cup on Saturday with a 2-0 win over Borussia D(...)
- Soccer
- April 30, 2014, 23:00
It is at times like these when, for a manager, the world can seem a dark place. As methods are pilloried, tactics crucified and past glories forgot(...)
- English Soccer
- April 26, 2014, 12:03
Alex Ferguson believes Ryan Giggs should become the next permanent Manchester United manager despite the club viewing the 40-year-old as lackin(...)
- Soccer
- April 25, 2014, 17:56
Lionel Messi led the tributes to his former coach Tito Vilanova, who has died of throat cancer at the age of 45. Vilanova led Barcelona (...)
- Business
- April 25, 2014, 01:10
The most poignant detail in the fall of David Moyes concerned his reading matter on the flight back home from his team's Champions League defea(...)
- Champions League
- April 8, 2014, 14:42
Bayern Munich coach Pep Guardiola expects Manchester United to park the bus when they come to the Allianz Arena. Bastian Schweinsteiger's(...)
- Champions League
- February 19, 2014, 01:00
For 20 minutes in 2010 Arsenal must have felt as if the pitch at the Emirates Stadium had been tipped towards their goal. The ball ju(...)
- Soccer
- January 11, 2014, 12:00
Last June and a chirpy press release brought "news" of a fresh Fifa initiative: Fifa had agreed with the champagne producers, Taittinger, that its bra(...)


text:
Address4th Floor
Block A, Centre House
Wood Lane
Celebrities work with charities and causes all the time and their presence can boost profile and grab news headlines. But are you ready to manage a celebrity ambassador? This training event will give you the skills to use celebrities wisely, approach them and plan how this activity fits in your communications strategy. You'll learn from leading media professionals how to understand and plan for the possible risks, and ensure that the coverage focuses on your charity's story, not the celebrity.
Ideal for you if:You want to attract and keep celebrity support to raise your profile, but need guidance to know you're approaching the relationship constructively.Back at work, you'll:
Steve Dinwoodie, owner, Raised on Radio Steve is owns Liverpool-based record promotions label Raised on Radio whos clients include Russell Watson and Chris de Burgh.
Joanna Simpson, PR consultant Award-winning lifestyle PR specialist. Clients range from e-commerce, fashion and retail to live music venues, nightclubs, restaurants and recycling. Former entertainment television programme-maker for ITV1, BBC1, BBC2 and Channel 4 including Fame Academy, T4, docusoaps and current affairs.
VAT will be charged at 20%You can book online now with a card or by invoice (see 'other payment options' at the bottom of the next page), or call us on 020 7871 5653
"The digital audience is savvy and being bombarded with information on a daily basis." Maggie Hitchins, editor of…Find out more
A host of digital giants including Twitter, BuzzFeed, giffgaff and stylist.co.uk will join not-for-profit big hitters including Comic…Find out more
Anyone who writes for an organisation needs to make sure their words get a reaction. Get tips, tricks and new…Book now
Stories are a vital currency of human communication. Spotting the stories in our work and being able to communicate them…Book now
Whatever you do in your work, you need a plan to ensure maximum impact and effectiveness. Your digital communications are…Book now
Registered charity number: 1042733
Copyright © 2014 MediaTrust. Site design by Corporation Pop


text:
There is a new stroller in town and it is part of the Peg Perego Book collection. The Peg Perego Book Pop-Up is a new full-featured stroller that not only comes with everything parents look for such as a reversible seat, easy fold and smooth ride, but it also comes complete with a folding bassinet… Read More
Baby Gizmo Spotlight Review: Bumbleride Indie 4 Stroller (VIDEO)
**UPDATE: GIVEAWAY ADDED! Giveaway ended! Congrats to the winner – Lynda T. Since we had such a positive response to the new Bumbleride Indie 4, we have decided to give one away! That's right, one lucky winner will be receiving the Bumbleride Indie 4 in the color of their choice!! Giveaway starts at 12:01am EST… Read More
How to Accessorize Your Joovy Qool (VIDEO)
At the beginning of 2014, Joovy jumped into the luxury stroller world and we were there to give you all the details! We reviewed the two brand new Joovy strollers – the Qool and TooQool to show you everything that these new strollers had to offer. Now that Spring is here, Joovy has added a few… Read More
Eddie Bauer Endurance Jogging Stroller Review (VIDEO)
With summer right around the corner, and hopefully warm weather coming, parents are going to start hitting the pavement with their kids in the strollers. After a long winter, many of our active moms and dads are going to going to have the chance to start jogging outside again. If you have little ones, you… Read More
Jane & Baby Gizmo Fully Loaded Giveaway
Congrats to the winner – Lauren V. It's been a few weeks since our last giveaway so we decided it was about time. We didn't want to launch it yesterday on April Fool's Day because we were afraid you'd think we were kidding. We are giving away over $1000 worth of gear away to one… Read More
Baby Gizmo Spotlight Video Review: Mima Xari
The Mima Xari is a brand-new (to the US!), luxury, modern stroller, that provides a smooth, gentle ride for your child and grows with your baby. Mima's patented "carrycot inside" system means that Xari can be used either as a pram or a toddler stroller. The innovative system means that, when not in use, the carrycot is stored… Read More
phil&teds Smart Lux Stroller GIVEAWAY!
Congrats to the winner – Entry #1458 – Lilia K. This week's Baby Gizmo Giant Weekly Giveaway is all about giving another stroller away before you can even buy it! Yep, our winner is going to be one lucky gal or guy! The phil&teds smart lux is the next evolution of the smart stroller. They… Read More
225,000 Strollers Recalled by Britax Due to Partial Fingertip Amputation Hazard
RECALL ALERT!! Approximately 225,000 Britax B-Agile (SINGLE AND DOUBLE) and BOB Motion strollers have been RECALLED in the US and Canada due to partial fingertip amputation hazard. Here's the scoop: NO KIDS OR BABIES HAVE BEEN INJURED!! All the injuries have been parents/caregivers. Britax has received eight incident reports. Incidents include one partial fingertip amputation, one… Read More
Mountain Buggy Nano Stroller GIVEAWAY
CONGRATS TO THE WINNER – Alexandra W. – Entry #3287 Mountain Buggy is taking the baby gear world by storm with the debut of their super travel-friendly stroller, the nano. Knowing that parents don't want to be weighed down by a big, heavy, bulky stroller when traveling with their babe, the nano was designed with… Read More
Joovy TooFold Spotlight Video Review
Joovy is entering the luxury stroller market with a bang lately! First, it was the Qool collection and now the unique TooFold has hit the market. We shared preliminary photos last week on this stroller and today we are sharing one of our Baby Gizmo Video Reviews on it! Yes, the TooFold is a… Read More
Jane Trider Extreme vs Jane Rider Comparison Video
We know that when we review two similar strollers that have a few differences, we leave our audience scratching their head and asking, "which one is best for ME?" They try to watch the videos side by side and figure out all the differences, but that isn't always easy. Today, we are taking the… Read More
Jane Rider Stroller Spotlight Review (VIDEO)
Yes, we have been on a Jane kick lately, but since they are new to the US, we wanted to show you what they have. Today we are focusing on the Jane Rider stroller. This four-wheel stroller is great for everyday use, but with the great shock absorbers and suspension, it can tackle the "mommy… Read More
Jane Trider Stroller Spotlight Review (VIDEO)
Last month we introduced you to the travel-friendly Jane Nanuq. Remember Jane is one of the world's oldest stroller companies based in Spain that was founded in 1948. They are doing a grand re-launch in the US right now and today we are focusing on the sporty, all-terrain Trider stroller. This sporty stroller is… Read More
Joovy TooFold Stroller
Joovy is on a roll lately! They are debuting new products left and right to add to their already robust collection of baby gear. Plus, there are even a few secret things in the works that I can't even share with you yet! We recently received the Joovy TooFold, and while we are putting it… Read More
Orbit Baby G3 is Coming!
Orbit Baby is getting ready to release their new G3 stroller for sale in just a few weeks (mid-January)! If you are one of those parents who must have likes to have the latest and greatest in the baby world, you might want to grab one of the G3s. We gave you a sneak peek… Read More
Maxi Cosi Kaia Stroller Spotlight Video Review
Looking for a great lightweight, travel-friendly stroller that is easy to fold AND accommodates an infant car seat to become a travel system? You definitely have to check out the Maxi-Cosi Kaia! This new compact stroller by Maxi Cosi might seem little but it has big features. Tall handles, a roomy seat, a super-duper easy… Read More
Jané Nanuq Stroller Spotlight Video Review
You may or may not have heard of Jané but it is definitely not a new company. As a matter of fact, Jané is one of the world's oldest stroller companies based in Spain that was founded in 1948. They are doing a grand re-launch in the US right now and we are focusing on… Read More
2014 Baby Jogger Vue Stroller Spotlight Review (with Video!)
In Spring 2014, Baby Jogger will offer the first reversible seat umbrella stroller available in the US. Knowing that some babies prefer to parent-face, the Vue stroller will let them do exactly that. SEAT The seat on the Vue is roomy with a weight capacity of up to 55 lbs. It measures 12″ wide,… Read More
Valco Baby Spark Spotlight Review (and VIDEO!)
Valco Baby introduced the Spark earlier this year. This is a 3-n-1 versatile stroller that sports a toddler seat that transforms into a bassinet/carrycot without any additional fabric or frame needed. This newborn to toddler stroller has great luxury features that can be considered for your one and only stroller (if you don't jog, that… Read More
Baby Gizmo 12 Days of Christmas 2013 Giveaway – Day 1
Congrats to our winners – Sara S from Mount Pleasant, SC – Entry #4626 – Mima Xari Ashley S – Entry #3564 – Timi & Leslie It is the most anticipated Baby Gizmo giveaway of the year! The Baby Gizmo 12 Days of Christmas Giveaway Extravaganza starts today! We are playing Oprah and giving some… Read More
- «Previous Page
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- …
- 10
- Next Page»


text:
I have a living room/dining room combination separated only by a partial wall. I want to install a floor-to-ceiling column at the edge of the partial wall. I don't know if there is any type of "header" in the ceiling. The capital and base are plastic, but I can't quite figure out how to attach them to the column and then attach those to the floor and ceiling. Please help! Thanks!
- Forum >
- Home Design >
- Installing columns
It does not sound like it matters whether there is a header or not, because all you seem to need is a cosmetic column, not a supporting one. If so, then just use drywall mud/joint compound to create a seamless joint between the cosmetic column and the ceiling.
[This message has been edited by Lawrence (edited August 18, 2001).]
If you want to add a SUPPORTING column, then you might want to hire that out. It is very doubtful that a partial wall is a supporting wall, and thus it might not line up with a joist inside the ceiling at all. Indeed, it might even run parallel with the joists right between two of them. You would need a stud detector to be sure to find where your joists are, which way they are running, and the like.
[This message has been edited by Lawrence (edited August 18, 2001).]
Thanks for the advice! This is definitely a cosmetic column. So, I guess that means that I'll essentially just be wedging the column and it's capital between the ceiling and the floor? It definitely has to be solidly placed. That's what got me so confused in the first place. Thanks again for any help...
Anchoring Columns for Gazebo
Dricore questions
Fiber Cement Siding next to Stone column
yonkers home, columns on porch
- 15 Old House Features We Shouldn't Abandon
- 17 Tiny Bathrooms We Love
- 30 Things Everyone Should Know
- 25 Insanely Easy-to-Make Holiday Ornaments
- 20 Easy 60-Minute Home Improvements
- 10 Classic Ways to Brighten Up a Dark Room
- 10 Quick and Creative Stocking Stuffers
- 133 Smart Storage Ideas for the Whole House
- 7 Unauthorized Uses for Common Appliances
- 8 Ways to Make a Small Room Look Big
- Best Secret Hiding Spots We've Ever Seen
- Sweet Dreams: 15 Inventive Beds You Can Make Yourself
- 11 Ways to Winterize Your Home
- Laundry Room Ideas to Knock Your Socks Off
- 10 Must-Do Projects for November
- 8 Cheap and Unique DIY Nightstands
- 15 Eye-Catching Options for Your Front Door
- Supersize Your Small Bath with 8 Pro Tips
- 8 Unique Ways to Build Your Own Table
- Woodworking for Beginners: 10 Projects
- 10 Houseplants You Can Grow ANYWHERE
- 10 Doable Designs for a DIY Rug
- 7 Incredible Uses for Salvaged Lumber
- 10 Bookcases You Can Make Yourself
- 7 Mistakes Not to Make with Your Fireplace
- The Easy 1-Hour Money-Saving Home Checkup
- Quick Fixes for a Fresher Shower
- Don't Try This at Home: 7 Dangerous DIYs
- 10 Ways to Redecorate Without Spending a Dime
- The Top 10 Artificial Christmas Trees


text:
She then continues to say that the special isn't just for women, but men too, "whether it's used just for a little bit of maintenance, a spray tan, or anything else. We're celebrating by making our clients look beautiful this summer!" The skin health expert team is highly skilled and trained to handle all skin types, on both men and women, and of people of all ages. "Our expert abilities ensure our customers get the best results."
Ms. Brunning then explains how to collect the complimentary $30 voucher, "simply opt-in through the special 10 Year Birthday Voucher link on our website."
The team at Facial Attraction is celebrating ten years of business by giving away $30 gift certificates to their customers for a limited time. The vouchers can be credited against any service between now and the end of 2013. The clinic's skin health expert team urges clients to contact them today before it's too late. With convenient locations around metro Melbourne, organizing a free 30-minute skin consult with a specialist is easy, simply call 1300 735 234 or
|Source: PRWeb
Copyright©2012 Vocus, Inc.
All rights reserved