Linguistics Computation, Automatic Model Generation, and Intensions
Extracted source text ยท arXiv cmp-lg/9409009
%Paper: cmp-lg/9409009
%From: "Cyrus F. Nourani" <73244.377@compuserve.com>
%Date: 09 Sep 94 13:04:26 EDT
%auto-ignore
Linguistics Computation, Automatic
Model Generation and Intensions
Cyrus F. NouraniMETAAI, Inc.California73244.377@CompuServe.Com
January 25, 1993
Revised August 1994
(Copyright) 1993 METAAI, Inc. Photo reproduction for noncommercial use
is permitted without payment of royalty provided that the Journal reference
and copyright notice are included on the first page. METAAI, Inc.
P.O. BOX 278, Cardiff By The Sea, CA. 92007, USA
1. Introduction
This paper is motivated by an overdue extensive commentary of this author
to the computational linguistics approaches to the problem of modeling
computations of some natural language problems , in view of some new AI
methods developed by this author [1,2]. The techniques were developed for
planning and reasoning in AI, however, they are also applicable to
computational linguistics, as we set out to prove by the present paper.
Several years ago, I was asked by the first author of [5] to comment on it.
At that time, I had suggested that some of the methods developed by the
present author in [9,10] with algebras, models, and types were applicable
to the problems approached by [5]. The present author and the former author
of [5] went off on projects apart at that point, this author spending time
on research directions connected to computational linguistics practice
only by mathematical foundations.
At last some time presented itself to this author to take on computational
linguistics issues to demonstrate the applicability of the, by now, further
developed techniques, to motivate the computational linguistics researchers
to apply the present author's methods. The following sections define AI
models, possible worlds, and their relation to computational linguistics.
We show how models can built from the syntax of logical theories. The
techniques are then applied by the method of G-diagrams to computational
linguistics. Some of the examples presented in [5] appear here to make it
easier for the readers of [5] to relate to the concepts of the present paper.
Intenstional logic and its models are developed within the present
formulation and embedded within our formulation of possible worlds [2,3].
Next, model expansion, extension and its dynamics is formulated and
presented with examples form natural language syntax. Automatic model
generation is then defined based on the set-theoretic and model-theoretic
formulations of this author.
2. AI Models and Possible Worlds
This section explores models of AI world and the intensional
approach to a logic of AI. The relation to possible worlds is to be
defined in terms of a model theory of AI worlds based on the Generalized
diagram method of this author [1,2,3,4]. The notions of standard and
general models of intensional logic of computational linguistics [5] is
viewed in terms of the GF-diagram model of AI computations [3,4].
To motivate model building from linguistic theories we recall the development
of the proof of Godel's completeness theorem. Henkin's proof of the
completeness theorem is accomplished by constructing a model directly from
the syntax of the given theory. This structure is obtained by putting terms
that are provably equal into equivalence classes, then defining a free
structure on the equivalence classes.
For example, h(r,t) . s(tr,ings) = hrt_ strings , the formal string
'hrt strings' formed by composing h (r,t) s(tr,ings), for h and s function
symbols.
Reasoning and planning enterprise requires more general techniques of model
construction and extension, since it has to accommodate dynamically
changing world descriptions and theories. The techniques in [2,4] for model
building as applied to the problem of AI reasoning allows us to build and
extend models through diagrams. These methods are also applicable to the
computational linguistics formulations and problems, as we shall demonstrate
in the present paper.
Thus it is required to focus on the notion of generalized diagram
(G-diagram). Such diagrams are used to build models with a minimal
family of generalized Skolem functions. The minimal set of function
symbols are those with which a model can be built inductively. We focus
our attention on such models, since they are Initial [8] and computable
[9,10].
Model revision is an important concept in designing plans for robots,
for other applications of planning for natural languages, and for reasoning
in AI. In order to formulate and solve revision problems within the present
formulation we had defined generalized diagrams [2,3]. Such diagrams are
essential for the task of model building to accommodate model revision,
model expansion, and knowledge revision.
Rather than putting forth a formal definition we present the basic idea
here, and refer the reader to the cited references for the formal notions.
The diagram of a structure is the set of atomic and negated atomic
sentences that are true in that structure. The generalized diagram
(G-diagram) [2,3] is a diagram in which the elements of the structure are
all represented by a minimal family of function symbols and constants, such
that it is sufficient to define the truth of formulas only for the terms
generated by the minimal family of functions and constant symbols.
Such assignment implicitly defines the diagram. This allows us to define
a canonical model of a theory in terms of a minimal family of function
symbols. The concept was formalized in [1], and called a G-diagram when [2]
was written. Let us review the example of a generalized diagram for the
blocks world problem solver. The special functions in the generalized
diagram are similar to CONS's in terms of which all objects are represented.
When theory revision occurs a new canonical model of the world is
generated by revising the diagram. New axioms are added, and some old
axioms are removed, letting us reconstruct a new canonical model of the
world directly from the diagram.
The usual practice in AI and natural languages has made use of the blocks
world example. We present a diagram formulation of that example here.
The blocks-world problem solver has one diagram function:
put :blocks,blocks, table --> blocks x blocks,table
forming a set of ordered pairs indicating the relative block positions.
There are three block names A,B, and C. For example,
put(A,B,Tab) is defined to be {(A,B),Tab}, where Tab is a variable
representing the table configuration The top operation is defined by
top : blocks,blocks, table --> {T,F}
In the above table is the set of table configurations is represented by Tab.
For example, top(A,B,{(C,B),(B,A)} = T, where {(C,B),(B,A)} is a table
configuration. Let us suppose we represent the table as a Cons'd list of
ordered pairs such as (A,B) denoting that A was put on B. Thus {A,(B,C)} is
a possible table configuration in which A and B are free, but B is on C.
Such table configuration is obtained by put(B,C,(A,B,C)).
The diagram has to assign truth values to top(x,y,z), where x, any y are
block names, and z is a table configuration. Let Tab be the initial table
configuration {A,B,C}. For example, one can define the G-diagram for the
blocks-world by
top(x,y,z) = T, if z = put(x,y,Tab),
or z= put(x,w,put(w,y,Tab));
= F, otherwise.
where x,y,w are variables assigned from {A,B,C} and z is a variable
representing table configurations.
A possible world may be thought of as a set of circumstances that might be
true in an actual world. In the possible world approach rather than
considering individual propositions, one focuses on the `state of affairs'
that are compatible with what one knows to be true, being regarded as
possible, relative to a world believed to be true, rather than being
absolute. For example, a world w might be a possible alternative relative
to w', but not to w''.
Possible worlds consists of a certain completeness property: for any
proposition p and world w, either p is true in w or not p is true in w.
Note that this is exactly the information contained in a generalized diagram,
as defined in the previous section. Let W be the set of all worlds and p be
a proposition. Let [p] be the set of worlds in which p is true. We call [p]
the truth-set of P. Propositions with the same truth-set are considered
identical. Thus there is a one one correspondence between propositions and
their truth sets.
Boolean operations on propositions correspond to set-theoretic operations
on sets of worlds. A proposition is true in a world if and only if the
particular world is a member of that proposition. The approach in [2,3]
allows us to encode planning problems within generalized diagrams.
The computational linguistics literature [5] defines various notions of
model for characterizing Tensed Intensional Logic, to define denotations
of various grammars.
3. Intensions and Models
We are interested to show the applicability of our method of generalized
diagrams and model theory of AI to such problems of computational
linguistics. To that end, let us examine the approach to defining models
and denotations in brief. Models are defined in [5] for Intensional Logic
as a from of possible worlds semantics. Models are defined by [5] in
terms of entities and their denotations, that at each moment in time have
a valuation defining a "model."
The entities are, viewed as being elementary, complex, or Boolean.
The elementary entities are those whose denotations are a subset of the
universe defining a model. The complex entities are those formed from
ordered pairs, with denotations that are functions on the subsets of
the universe of the model, which the components of the ordered pair name.
A model M on a universe set A and I x J is a pair <D,F> (I X J),
where D:I x J is the set of denotations based on A and I X J, such that
I is a set of possible worlds and J the set of moments in time. F then
assigns the denotations at I X J form the universe set A and the Boolean
universe. We have actually stated a complex formulation in a perhaps
simpler language than [5] for our readers.
The goal of projects such as [5] and our project in computational
linguistics is to be able to build models automatically and gradually
form incomplete information [5] refers to models that have all the real
world semantics, having definition of all functions closed under lambda
abstraction, as "general," and "dynamic" to those which are not fully
defined, due to a lack of data provided to a computer system implementing
automatic model construction.
Now let us embed the computational linguistics models within our formulation
of possible worlds dynamics and generalized diagrams. Recall that
generalized diagrams encode possible worlds [2,3]. Furthermore, it is
possible to build a model direct from the generalized diagram. Thus all
we have to do is to index the generalized diagram with the a time set J.
At each moment J, there is a generalized diagram M[G(I,J)], corresponding
to the possible world I a moment J. Our model is then defined straight
from the M[G(I,J)], where M defines a model for a language L, with universe
M, from our formulation of a model theory of AI [2,3]. The terminology for
models in [5] is not carried over to our formulation in the same sense.
We either have models in the standard sense of model theory, or have
generalized diagrams that are defined by either indeterminate symbols[2]
or free generalized Skolem functions [4] and Skolem terms.
The elements of the domain that do not have explicit names, are "named"
by some term inductively defined from the type constructors [2], since we
have a G-diagram to define a model. Thus the dynamics of the possible
worlds, incomplete information, encoded by G-diagrams, and the instants
of time define dynamic models.
4. Linguistics Instantiation and Its Dynamics
The interpretation process in [5] deals with gradually assigning meaning
to Montague grammar sentences, thus it concerns itself also with quantifiers
such as Necessary, Past, and Future, which are restricted to points of
reference on the index set J of time. For practical system building, that
is only applied to finite domains. We examine the Montague grammar example
only to compare with the methods and examples applied by [5], since
otherwise it is difficult to provide a comparsion by way of example
between our techniques and [5].
Let us illustrate how model expansion and its dynamics is implemented
within our formulation as compared to the application area which [5]
addressed itself to. A partially specified model of English language might
look as follows:
English man walk Johnny
Logic j m b man* walk* P(j)
Model J M B {J,B} walkers Term1
{J,M, B?}
Term1 = {men,walkers}.
The formulas to be interpreted contain the English words man, walk and Johnny..
man* and walk* are dealt with as higher order functions in [5], where man*'s
denotations is the pair formed form the set of Men {J, B} and the Boolean set.
In the translation to logic, man , becomes man*, walk becomes walk* and John
the
formula lambda (j) P(j) of type
<<{J,H}, Boolean>, Boolean>
The model has three entities J,M, B, which are the denotations of constant
symbols j, m, and b. For example, F(j) = J. The set of men is known, the
set of WALKERS consists of J and M, but is unspecified for B.
F(man*) = MEN, and F(walk*) = WLAKERS.
[5] shows that in their formulation that the higher type term Term1, which
contains both MEN and WALKERS, is the valuation of lambda(j) P(j). A logic
formula in the language of [5] viewed in the context of Montague grammar,
of the form [lambda P (P(j)](walk*)] gets interpreted to <walk*(j),Boolean>
and evaluates to true, since walk*(J) is true. The type of walk* is
<Men, Boolean>. Thus the English phrase J Walks, can be interpreted by the
above method.
What does this say, and how do we present this with an easier implementation
with G-diagrams. First of all, let us define a generalized standard model.
A generalized standard model was defined by this author in [3,9],
for example, to be models inductively defined from a minimal set of
functions symbols. Those are the Skolem functions which form the type
constructors for these standard models.
The presentation of the above example in the present formulation goes as
follows. We define functions each with its own function symbols, rather
than with lambda abstraction. If we really wanted we could define an
indexed family of functions of certain type, for example <P(j) s> for
s in S an index set, such that we can have several functions of the form
P(j), to have the same effect as lambda abstraction of P, or even invoke
higher order functions making use of algebraic theories, [8,10].
Entering the model in this paper corresponds to a system for which models
are entered by introducing Skolem functions for various types and defining
a model based on axioms, defining a theory, for example for linguistics of
a subset of English. A model can then be generated from the syntax.
The author has developed a sample system that could handle such
formulations.
Next , we start with P(j) as a function symbol with a function corresponding
to it in the standard model. The function P is defined by a family of two
functions Pm, and Pw, where Pm corresponds to the function symbol MAN
and Pw to the function symbol WALKERS.
There are three types, in addition to the Boolean type, for which we have
to define type constructors in order to define a G-diagram. The types are
man, walkers the family of functions <P> and the Boolean type. The type
constructor for man are {J,B}. The type walkers has the set of type
constructors {J, M, and B}. The functions <P> have the following types.
Pm ={J[H] , B[H]} --> Boole
Pw ={J[H], M[H], B?[H]} --> Boole.
Where H is a sort of Hilbert epsilon operation. H checks for membership to
the set to which the function is applied to. Thus Pm(J[H])(MEN) = True,
Pm(M[H](MEN) = False, and Pm(B?[H])(MEN) = True. In a similar manner, we can
define Pw's applications.
Pw(X[H])(WALKERS) = True for any X in the set WALKERS
Thus defining a set a set {Pm,Pw} and if applied to walk*, as in
Pm(j)(walk*), it evaluates to J F(walk)* = True, and Pw(j)(walk*) = True
as well. The above was two interpretation of the English sentence Johnny
Walks:one with WALKERS as the domain the other with MEN WALKERS. Now let
us view a quantified formula, the English sentence A man walks. The logic
formula to interpret with an interpretation function I is
(there exits u)(man*(u) & walk*(u)).
The existentially quantified variable can be instantiated by a Skolem
constant, u = Johnny to get to the following sentence
man*(u) & walk*(u)
man*(u) ==> man* has model MEN = {J,B} ==> I(man*(u)) = true
walk*(u) ==> walk* has model WALKERS = {J,M,B} ==>
I(walk*(u)) = True (Boolean 1)
5. Syntactic Dynamics
There are recent techniques for structurally transforming abstract
syntax by applying logical rules, for example functional composition,
and abstraction. Thus defining categorical grammars [12] and the
Lambek calculus for grammars [13 ]. These techniques have formed a
basis for defining natural deduction like rules for grammars and proof
techniques for abstract syntax trees by Konig [14,16 ].
Thus syntactic dynamics is treated by linguistic proof system, called
DYANA [15 ]. These techniques are promising for a proof-theoretic
view of categorical grammars. Whether or not these techniques are
applicable to defining models from syntax, is not an obvious
proposition to be wafted away by the present time limits and intended
theoretical boundaries of the present paper. This is an area for further
research.
The author might envision combining syntactic dynamics [18] with
the model-theoretic dynamics for linguistics presented by this paper.
Once we view defining automatic models from syntax, it is obvious the
techniques will be applicable is some form. Computational
linguistics proof systems might be combined with model-theoretic
dynamics for linguistics to define how arbitrary syntax trees might be
transformed to trees from which models are defined. This area is being
treated by this author's new techniques for free proof trees [4,17] and
is an area for promising forthcoming research.
The degree to which our techniques for presenting models are complex
are not unrelated to the techniques alluded to by the present section.
Since the complexity of model building is a function of the tree
transformation techniques applied to define models from syntax.
However, a complexity study puts us outside the intended goals of the
present paper, which is to present model-theoretic techniques for
computational linguistics model generation. If there is any complexity
questions, is has to do with the linguistics proof theory applied to
transform syntax tree as in Konig's papers.
6. The Dynamics of Model Expansion
It is not a small task to formulate these concepts with the elegance of
set theoretic and model-theoretic formulations. The present methods have
not been attempted for computational linguistics thus far. This section
defines how dynamic model expansion can be formulated by G-diagrams and
why such model expansion occurs. It also relates the formulation to the
various concepts that were presented in the sections above. Some of the
problems are:
How do we handle adding new elements to the model.
Functions that are partially defined for all strings in the language.
Adding unknown names that can be bound to the model .
Testing for equality of partially specified functions.
The reasoning and planning enterprise requires methods of model extension,
since it has to accommodate dynamically changing world descriptions and
theories. We have developed a theory for it, which are presented in some
of the referenced papers of this author. These techniques are also
applicable to the computational linguistics arena. We had presented the
method of generalized diagrams for building models of AI worlds of
reasoning and planning[2,3]. The techniques allow us to build
models with a minimal family of function symbols.
The minimal set of function symbols are those with which a model can be built
inductively.
We shall focus our attention on such models, since they can be shown to
be "initial" and computable We had called such models generalized standard
models ever since [9,10] were written. The next few paragraphs might appear
far removed form the usual encounters of computational linguistics. However,
the enterprise of dynamic model building takes the level of mathematics
that is put forth in gentle terms in what follows.
The G-diagram method allows us to define a method of extending structures
to build models with special properties. The construction involves a partial
ordering, a `forcing relation', abbreviated by GR between the elements of
the partially ordered set (poset), and the concept of the 'genericity' of
the subsets. Intuitively, a generic set for a GR property is the minimal
set that contains all that is required to capture the sentences that one
could show to be satisfied by a model.
Given a model M and a generic set G, one can form a model extension M[G]
which is still a model of the original theory. The generic sets are used to
contain all that one "knows" about the particular AI world model. For default
logic, we can use forcing notions to construct models of theories satisfying
certain completeness properties relating validity and provability, or to show
the limits of what might be provable in such logics.
The members of the poset are referred to as `conditions.' In the present
formulation conditions are sets of formulae in a closure of the theory
describing the particular AI world under inductive consequence. Suppose
we define AI world descriptions the logical axioms using the predicate
logic paradigm for knowledge representation, or descriptions as theories
The way we proceed to construct the particular ordering is to consider the
natural containment ordering on sets of formulae of the theory of the
particular world description, together with a certain closure of the sets
of formulae on the particular AI world, to from the partially ordered set
of forcing conditions. The closure construction is referred to as Inductive
Closure in [1,3]. Given an AI world axiomatization W, the axiomatization
presents a theory T(W).
Let F be a family of functions which minimally defines W through inductive
definitions. The inductive closure T*(W) is the set of formulae of W
provable from T(W) in conjunction with a family of induction schemas
<I(f)> for each f in F, through induction and modus ponens, in a language
which includes implication -> as a logical symbol and in which negation
appears as a Boolean-valued operation only. That the formulation is with
Boolean valued functions is consistent with the approach to computational
linguistics.
One of the basic results of this author applied in [1,2] is that the
partially ordered set defined by the power set of T*(W), under the natural
subset ordering, defines a forcing property for which T*(W) generates a
generic set. Thus the closure construction contains all one needs to
conclude the truth of formulas in the particular world. To show how model
expansion and extension gets implemented in the present formulation, let us
define the notion of consistency. In our formulation it is the consistency
of a formula relative to an initial model characterizing the AI world.
Thus if p(x) = T is consistent with the initial model characterizing the
AI world, then p(x) can be instantiated and the model expanded.
If p is determined consistent, it means that somehow the reasoning method
was able to determine that adding p in does not result in theorems of the
form T = F, so that the initial model does not satisfy p, even though
p = T is not provable.
Alternatively, that p = T does not collapse an equivalence class of formulas
including `T' to `F ' in the initial model, so that if neither
p nor not p are contradictory with what is believed, then we can do an
arbitrary model extension by defining p = T. The theory then matches the
extended model. In that case we are forcing that formula to True. This in
turn forces a number of terms of the language that spring up as a
consequence to be congruent and have to become part of the model.
The forcing notions are a mathematical characterization of incremental
model building.
Let us now view how unspecified function values, additional functions,
new domain elements, congruence of new terms, and functions with new
elements as a value, leads to model expansion and how these issues are
dealt with in the present approach. If we view the model that we start with,
and have entered its definition in a computer system, we might view the
computational process that occurs when a new sentence is presented for
interpretation.
The theoretical issues are not pursued here, since some of the formulations
are subject of other papers of this author in the planning context [2,4]
and some are written to appear in forthcoming papers. The present paper is
strictly addressing the computational linguistics issues. What will happen
when a sentence is presented of the form Every man walks.
This sentence once interpreted relative to the set of WALKERS only known
to be only {J,M}, it attempts to interpret man*(u) --> walk*(u), for u =M,
while M is not in the set of MEN, so the formula is evaluated to True.
But for u = B, man*(u) is True, but for man = B, the evaluation results
in an unknown (nil, for example). The approach here is to add expand the
model with the set of WLAKERS extended to have B as a new member. We could
also force it to false, and not expand the model. This is the same issue
dealt with in defining model expansion for generalized standard (Initial)
models earlier this section.
Next, let us examine testing for equality of partially-specified functions
as another example of model expansion. Let u consider the example of the set
of TALKERS = {J, M?}, and the set of WALKERS = {J,M,B?}. Now suppose, we test
for TALKERS = WALKERS. We could either force this to be true, in which case we
have to ensure that all predicates defined on TALKERS can be instantiated for
M,
and that all predicates defined on TALKERS can be instantiated for B if B turns
out to be a WALKER.
Re-evaluating functions once new domain elements are added and term
congruences is another method by which model expansion occurs. In each case,
terms that are to be congruent due to the new elements added, can lead to
model expansion. Again, this is much easier handled within the present
formulation, since the terms are defined by a minimal set of type
constructor. Thus what new terms the new elements imply for model expansion,
can
be defined by inductive definition form the type constructors. This is
a lot harder to deal with in any other formulation.
7. Extensions, Intensions, and G-diagrams
The quantification in the extensional approach is interpreted relative
to the individuals of the domain of the model. In the intensional
formulation the quantification is over a domain D<S,E> of concepts,
which may not always be fully specified. Let us view this in the context
of an example form [5] with an Intentional Model
The Entities: D_E = {J,M, NI, HU}
Points of Reference:S = {I1,I2}
Individual Concepts
D_<S,E> = {NINIIC NIHUIC HUNIIC}
NINIIC = {<I1 N1> <I2 N1>}
NIHUIC = {<I1 N1> <I2 HU>}
HUNIIC = {<I1 HU> <I2 NI>}
Sets of Individual Concepts
D_<S,<<S,E>, Boolean>> = {PRICE1 PRCE2 RISE1}
PRICE1= {NINIIC NIHUIC}
PRICE2 = {NINIIC? HUNIIC}
RISE1 = {NIHUIC}
Properties of Individual Concepts
D_<S,<<S,E>,Boolean>> = {SPRICE SRISE}
SPRICE = {<I1 PRICE1> <I2 PRICE2>}
SRISE = {<I1 RISE1><I2 RISE1>}
Meaning Function
F(n) = NINIIC
F(price) = SPRICE
F(rise) = SRISE
As pointed out by [5], evaluation of logically equivalent formulas could
require different degree of model expansion. The process of evaluation
causes model expansion so as to assign a value to each subexpression. Here
is the slightly difficult last part of our run on the computational
linguistics slope: to present the above with G-diagrams. It is not too
difficult once you observe that the there are the four constant type
constructors {J,M, NI,HU} and that there are two sets of possible worlds,
one for each of the two instants I1 and I2. Thus there are two parallel
sets of possible worlds W[I1] and W[I2] .
The individual concepts also depend on the possible world set chosen.
For W[I1] the type constructors are {NI, HU}x I1, and for W[I2] it is
i{NI,HU} xI2. Sets of individual concepts are formed form the set of
individuals. In particular they are
{NINIIC NIHUIC} {NINIIC? HUNIIC?} {NIHUIC}
The properties of individuals are paired for each of the two possible
worlds as defined in the example in the beginning of this section. Thus
it is not difficult to define all predicate evaluation and model generation
in terms of G-diagrams defined form the type constructors, that depend on
the possible world index set {I1,I2}. We can view the example presented
in [5] here as well.
The formula to be evaluated is (the exists x)(price(x) & rise(x)).
Let us see how our approach generates a model for it. First there is the
set of possible worlds W[I1]: price (x) evaluates to PRICE1 = {NINIIC NIHUIC}.
Let us instantiate x with the Skolem constant NINIIC. Then rise (x)
evaluates to RISE1, which is not NIHNIIC. Thus the formula is modeled by
FALSE in the model defined by G-diagrams of W[I1].
If, however, we evaluate in W[I2], we can instantiate x with the Skolem
constant NIHUIC, for which price works out and RISE1 = {NIHUIC} turns out
to be consistent and the formula has a True evaluation in the model defined
by G-diagram of W[I2].
8 Concluding Comments
We have presented a method of defining models of computation for linguistics
theories based on the method of generalized diagrams of this author. It is
shown how models can be derived automatically from the linguistics theories,
expanded, and handle natural language interpretations. We had written an
extended abstract [11] which outlined the present project and formed the
basis for the present paper.
The present techniques can form a basis for design and implementation of
computational linguistics systems with a generalized diagram formulation of
possible worlds, for which both extensional and intensional models can be
generated.
References
[1] Nourani, C.F. "Equational Intensity, Initial Models, and Reasoning in
AI:A Conceptual Overview," Proc. 6th European AI Conference,
Pisa, Italy, September 1984.
[2] ___________ "Diagrams, Possible Worlds,and The Problem of
Reasoning in AI," Logic Colloquium, 1987, Padova,
Italy, Proc.,Journal of Symbolic Logic.
[3] ____________ "Planning and Plausible Reasoning in AI:
Diagram,Planning and Reasoning," Proc.Scandinavian
AI Conference, May 1991, Denmark, IOS Press, Amsterdam.
[4] ___________ "Free Skolemization, Nondeterministic Planning,
and Reasoning in AI, Aug-Sept. 1992, METAAI, Inc.
Extended Abstract.
[5] Friedman, J, D.B. Moran, and D.S. Waren, "Dynamic
Interpretation of Semantics: in A Process Version
of Montague Grammars," Report N-16, Computer
Studies, in Formal Linguistics, The University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, CCS Department, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, Presented to the Sloan Foundation
Workshop on Formal Semantics at Stanford
University.
[6] Hintikka, J., Knowledge and Belief, Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, NY, 1961.
[7] Kripke, S. A. "Semantical Analysis of Modal Logics," Zeitschrift
fuer Mathematiche Logic und Grunndlogen der Mathematik,
vol.9, 1963, 67-69.
[8] Goguen, J.A., J.W. Thatcher, J.W., E.G. Wagner,
and J.B.Wright, A Junction Between Computer
Science and Category Theory part IV:
An Introduction to Algebraic Theories, IBM
Yorktown Heights Research Report, 1976.
[9] Nourani, C.F. "Abstract Implementations and Their
Correctness Proofs, September 1979, JACM,
vol. 30, no. 2, April 1983
[10] Nourani, C.F. "Constructive Extension and Implementation of
Abstract Data Types and Algorithms," UCLA Semantics
and Theory of Computation Report, June 1979, Available
by UMI, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
[11] ___________ "Artificial Intelligence Computation,Models,and
Intensions," METAAI, Inc., Extended Abstract,October12, 1992.
[12] Lambek , J. "The Mathematics of Sentence Structure," American
Mathematical Monthly, 65, 154-170.
[13] Moortgat, M, "Categorical Investigatins, Logical and Linguistics
Aspects of Lambek Calculus. Foris, Dordrecht, 1988.
[14] Konig, E., "Parsing as Natural Deduction," Proc. 27th Annual
Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 272-279,
Vancouver, B.C., 1989.
[15] Konig, E., "Parsing Categorical Grammars, Report 1.2.C, Espirit
Basic Research Action 3175, Dynamic Interpretaion of Natural
Language (DYANA)",1990.
[16] Konig, E.,"A Hypothetical Reasoning Algorithm for Linguistic
Analysis," J. Logic Computaion, Vol. 4, No.1, 1994.
[17] Nournai, C.F. and Th. Hoppe, " GF-Diagrams for Models and
Free Proof Trees," METAAI, Inc. March 1994, Presented at the Berlin
Logic Colloquium, May 1994.
[18] Nourani, C.F., "Language Dynamics and Syntactic Models,"
METAAI, Inc. August 1994.