![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We need to mention that the technical problem is regarded as solved.---- Charles Stewart 10:43, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I have introduced a technical explanation of the problem as was initially specified in artificial intelligence. I have removed the following sentence (I would not object to reintroduction, if references are provided).
Suggested solutions to the frame problem include satisficing, heuristics, and rational ignorance.
Paolo Liberatore ( Talk) 10:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
[moved from above to keep the above thread whole]
Is the frame problem really "solved"? In my opinion, in most cases this problem is only "elluded" by using some naive assumptions that would make AI systems less useful in real world applications. For example, in many proposals (such as those provided by situation calculus), a bold assumption is an "inertia" world that common sense law of inertia can apply. This means all the relationships between logic formulae used in precondition and effects are enumerated by the action axioms. In other words, there are NO axioms among the condition formulae themselves. This is kind of unrealistic in real world. Just imagine now I have to define some actions using formulae defined by a domain model. For instance, I want to design the actions of an agent reasoning about an OWL knowledgebase. Then the "inertia" world approach would require us to list not just the direct effects, but ALL of their logic consequences! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.104.203 ( talk • contribs) 15:13, 9 April 2006
The frame problem is also present in the world of modular reasoning in formal verification. Solution strategies here include modify-clauses, separation logic, ownership (dynamic or static) and dynamic frames. Could anybody add a section about it? If nobody does and nobody minds, I will write a paragraph about it within the next month. -- Schoelle 13:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
For me it looks like a very specific scientific publication - too much details for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, is it a part of computational philosophy or rather AI, or a research in mathematical logics ?
- For instance, is "the simplified example of the door and the light" a simple philosophical problem?
What about a critical viewpoint? - a visitor -- 87.20.192.228 23:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
It might be interesting to quote the following section from the original McCarthy and Hayes paper that (I think) given a good informal description of the frame problem:
What to you think? -- Schoelle 18:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand how the Yale Shooting Problem indicated a problem for the default logic solution. Since fluents are assumed to remain in the state in which they are unless changed by an action, how does the YSP affect this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.138.29 ( talk) 04:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Folks,
I was wondering if the fourth formular in the Frame_problem#The_successor_state_axioms_solution section is right?
Shouldn't it be
and not
Then the correct formulas are:
intead of
Bye Sebastian Loh-- 89.245.192.199 ( talk) 10:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC).
Hi, is it only me, who thinks it's strange in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_problem#The_predicate_completion_solution that one needs to do a conjunction with `true'? I.e. isn't ¬open(0)∧true the same as ¬open(0)? 84.108.237.238 ( talk) 06:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I have suggested that Frame problem (philosophy) should be merged into this article.
Rationale: Both articles are on the same subject. The frame problem is a long-standing problem in cognitive science, and you may just as well say "in philosophy (of mind, of cognition …)", "in artificial intelligence" etc. – it does not depend very much on the discipline. The problem is the same, even if it is suggested to have acquired a broader meaning in philosophy, a claim that is made in Frame problem, to wit, whereas the other article is a stub and has been for a long time. There is no problem at all in a merge, as the article Frame problem can easily cover any aspects that may be considered more of a "purely" philosophical nature – on the contrary, if there are subtleties in the history of the concept it should be convenient and profitable for any reader to have them covered in one article. As to the title, Frame problem should be preferred as it is more general and at the same time open to any terminological specification within the article. 㓟 ( talk) 11:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Right now there are a list of links to "related problems" that are attributed to J. van Brakel but with no references at all. I couldn't find a page for this person and while I'm familiar with the frame problem, in fact I was just reading a journal article that discussed it, I've never heard this name or these specific issues. Many of the links are red lined. I plan to delete the entire section unless someone can provide a reference and justification that this stuff is notable enough in relation to the Frame Problem. RedDog ( talk) 16:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Currently the introduction says: "The name "frame problem" derives from a common technique used by animated cartoon makers called framing where the currently moving parts of the cartoon are superimposed on the "frame," which depicts the background of the scene, which does not change." It's been a while since I did any reading in this area so I may just not be remembering but I don't recall ever coming across this. I'm reading some of the source articles now, if I don't come across anything that supports this statement I will consider it OR and remove it. RedDog ( talk) 16:59, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm planning to merge the article Frame problem (philosophy) with this article. That article is currently a stub. I think that everything of value said in that article is now reflected in the introduction which I've revised. I didn't put a comment to that effect in the edit history though because I didn't copy any of the text from the other article, I just rewrote the intro here in my own words and when I checked on the other article it seems to me everything it says is already in this article now. So to completely document things, I'm going to paste the entire text from the merged article here, just for completeness:
In philosophy, the frame problem is the problem of how an intelligent agent bounds the set of beliefs to change when an action is performed. This problem originates from artificial intelligence, where it is formulated as the problem of avoiding to specify all conditions that are not affected by actions, in the context of representing dynamical domains in a formal logic. In philosophy, the problem is about rationality in general, rather than being a technical problem related to formal logic in particular.
RedDog ( talk) 14:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This article on the 'Frame problem' is ludicrous. Absolutely no references to Daniel C. Dennett nor to the whole back and forth through the literature between him and many leaders in the AI community?! This article needs a MAJOR makeover with proper respect to the actual HISTORY of this IMPORTANT argument amongst philosophers, scientists, and engineers about the frame problem and it's impact on human cognition, knowledge, and artificial intelligence techniques to emulate human cognition. Missing SO MUCH!