Abstract
The problem discussed in this paper is described in a 1959 paper by John McCarthy as follows: Assume that I am seated at my desk at home and I wish to go to the airport. My car is at my home also. The solution of the problem is to walk to the car and drive the car to the airport. In the spirit of what is now known as the logic approach to AI, McCarthy proposed to address this problem by first giving “a formal statement of the premises” that a reasoning program would use to draw the relevant conclusions. Our goal here is to take a careful look at this episode from the early history of AI and to identify some of the logical and algorithmic ideas related to the airport problem that have emerged over the years.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Clark, K. (1978). Negation as failure. In Gallaire, H. and Minker, J., editors, Logic and Data Bases, pages 293–322. Plenum Press, New York.
Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In The Logic of Decision and Action, pages 81–120. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Dimopoulos, Y., Nebel, B., and Koehler, J. (1997). Encoding planning problems in non-monotonic logic programs. In Steel, S. and Alami, R., editors, Proc. European Conf on Planning 1997, pages 169–181. Springer-Verlag.
Fikes, R. and Nilsson, N. (1971). STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving. Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4): 189–208.
Geffner, H. (1990). Causal theories for nonmonotonic reasoning. In Proc. AAAI-90, pages 524–530. AAAI Press.
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1991). Classical negation in logic programs and disjunctive databases. New Generation Computing, 9:365–385.
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1993). Representing action and change by logic programs. Journal of Logic Programming, 17:301–322.
Gelfond, M. and Lifschitz, V. (1998). Action languages. http://www.ep.liu.se/ea/cis/1998/016 Electronic Transactions on AI, 3, pages 195–210.
Giunchiglia, E. and Lifschitz, V. (1998). An action language based on causal explanation: Preliminary report. In Proc. AAAI-98, pages 623–630. AAAI Press.
Green, C. (1969). Application of theorem proving to problem solving. In Walker, D. and Norton, L., editors, Proc. IJCAI, pages 219–240. The MITRE Corporation.
Hanks, S. and McDermott, D. (1987). Nonmonotonic logic and temporal projection. Artificial Intelligence, 33(3):379–412.
Kautz, H. and Selman, B. (1992). Planning as satisfiability. In Proc. ECAI-92, pages 359–363.
Kautz, H. and Selman, B. (2000). Encoding domain and control knowledge for propositional planning. In Minker, J., editor, Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence, pages 169–186, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, Massachusetts 02061.
Lifschitz, V. (2000). Missionaries and cannibals in the causal calculator. In Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning: Proc. Seventh Int’l Conf., pages 85–96.
Lifschitz, V. (1997). On the logic of causal explanation. Artificial Intelligence, 96:451–465.
Lifschitz, V. (1999a). Answer set planning. In Proc. ICLP-99, pages 23–37.
Lifschitz, V. (1999b). Success of default logic. In Levesque, H. and Pirri, F., editors, Logical Foundations for Cognitive Agents: Contributions in Honor of Ray Reiter, pages 208–212. Springer-Verlag.
Lin, F. and Reiter, R. (1994). State constraints revisited. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4:655–678.
McCain, N. and Turner, H. (1997). Causal theories of action and change. In Proc. AAAI-97, pages 460–465.
McCain, N. and Turner, H. (1998). Satisfiability planning with causal theories. In Cohn, A., Schubert, L., and Shapiro, S., editors, Proc. Sixth Int’l Conf. on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, pages 212–223.
McCarthy, J. (1959). Programs with common sense. In Proc. Teddington Conf. on the Mechanization of Thought Processes, pages 75–91, London. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Reproduced in McCarthy, 1990.
McCarthy, J. (1986). Applications of circumscription to formalizing common sense knowledge. Artificial Intelligence, 26(3):89–116. Reproduced in McCarthy, 1990.
McCarthy, J. (1990). Formalizing Common Sense: Papers by John McCarthy. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
McCarthy, J. and Hayes, P. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In Meitzer, B. and Michie, D., editors, Machine Intelligence, volume 4, pages 463–502. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Reproduced in McCarthy, 1990.
Pednault, E. (1987). Formulating multi-agent, dynamic world problems in the classical planning framework. In Georgeff, M. and Lansky, A., editors, Reasoning about Actions and Plans, pages 47–82. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA.
Pednault, E. (1994). ADL and the state-transition model of action. Journal of Logic and Computation, 4:467–512.
Reiter, R. (1980). A logic for default reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132.
Schubert, L. (1990). Monotonie solution of the frame problem in the situation calculus: an efficient method for worlds with fully specified actions. In Kyburg, H., Loui, R., and Carlson, G., editors, Knowledge Representation and Defeasible Reasoning, pages 23–67. Kluwer.
Selman, B., Kautz, H., and McAllester, D. (1997). Ten challenges in propositional reasoning and search. In Proc. IJCAI-97, pages 50–54.
Shanahan, M. (1997). Solving the Frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia. MIT Press.
Subrahmanian, V. and Zaniolo, C. (1995). Relating stable models and AI planning domains. In Proc. ICLP-95, pages 233–247.
Turner, H. (1997). Representing actions in logic programs and default theories: a situation calculus approach. Journal of Logic Programming, 31:245–298.
Zhang, H. (1997). An efficient propositional prover. In Proc. CADE-97, pages 272–275.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lifschitz, V., McCain, N., Remolina, E., Tacchella, A. (2000). Getting to the Airport: The Oldest Planning Problem in AI. In: Minker, J. (eds) Logic-Based Artificial Intelligence. The Springer International Series in Engineering and Computer Science, vol 597. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1567-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1567-8_7
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-5618-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-1567-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive