Newsgroups: comp.object.logic,sci.logic,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!news.acns.nwu.edu!news.eecs.nwu.edu!ian
From: ian@eecs.nwu.edu (Ian Sutherland)
Subject: Re: logic of change
Message-ID: <CvGz89.31G@eecs.nwu.edu>
Keywords: logic, dynamic, temporal, time, sets, classes
Sender: usenet@eecs.nwu.edu
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
References: <341hl5$4c7@idefix.cs.kuleuven.ac.be>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 1994 21:19:21 GMT
Lines: 9
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object.logic:233 sci.logic:8095 sci.philosophy.tech:15708

In article <341hl5$4c7@idefix.cs.kuleuven.ac.be>,
Jan Dockx <'Jan.Dockx@cs.kuleuven.ac.be> wrote:
>Pointers to "dynamic logic" (b[PROGRAM]e), temporal
>logic (event calculus, modal tense logic ( P(P(F(clause))) ),
>situation calculus, Allen's theory of time (periods)) are not
>needed. They don't do what I need.

It's not immediately apparent why one of these logics isn't
adequate.  Would you explain where they fall short?
