Circumscription: a logical farce

Giant Arambourgiania pterosaurs arguing over a small theropod

Arambourgiania philadelphiae (CC) Mark Witton

Reality is unboundedly complex. Our knowledge of it is limited; in any practical situation, there are many relevant factors we are ignorant of. This creates deep problems for systematic rationality.

During the 1980s, I was involved in two different approaches to these difficulties. One was the logicist program in artificial intelligence, developed by John McCarthy, a founder of the field overall. McCarthy concluded that standard mathematical logic could not address problems of incomplete knowledge. He and others developed alternative, non-monotonic logics for the purpose. McCarthy called his version “circumscription.” His motivating example was the missionary and cannibals problem, a famous logical puzzle.

Logicism was opposed by Marvin Minsky, another founder of the field. I was a student of Minsky’s, and found his arguments against logicism convincing. But he didn’t have a coherent alternative.

By the mid-1980s, numerous serious obstacles in logicism became apparent, and the approach stalled. One was the Yale Shooting Problem, due to Drew McDermott, which showed that circumscription doesn’t work in general. McDermott, originally a student of Minsky, had switched to the logicist program, but in 1987 wrote a famous “Critique of Pure Reason,” arguing that the approach had failed.

Around the same time, Phil Agre and I developed an alternative approach, influenced by ethnomethodology, the empirical study of practical action, which we learned primarily from Lucy Suchman.

A year ago, I started work on In the Cells of the Eggplant, a book about how to better use systematic rationality. It draws on what I came to understand in the 1980s about reasoning with incomplete knowlege. Since last October, my time has been taken up with family responsibilities, so I only began writing again a few weeks ago.

I have an unfortunate weakness for intricate, absurdist jokes. They make some of my most important essays unnecessarily difficult to follow. I want The Eggplant to be as accessible as possible, so I keep removing jokes that might entertain some readers at the price of confusing most.

“Kill the kittens” is one of the best pieces of writing advice: remove anything you think is especially clever, that you are particularly fond of. It’s bound to be self-indulgent nonsense. The following explanation of circumscription is an extreme case. It belongs on the cutting room floor. And certainly not in the book! But I find it so cute that I can’t bear not to publish it as a blog post.

Couple more things to know before we get started. Dakinis are Buddhist witches, sometimes described as cannibals, and known sometimes for their lustful appetites. And, the victim in the Yale Shooting Problem was named Fred. McDermott thought Fred was a turkey, but he may have been mistaken.

text separator

[MARVIN and JOHN are conversing on a river bank. LUCY and PHIL are standing off to one side. She is videotaping their conversation, and he is taking notes on a clipboard.]

Marvin: You know the missionary and cannibals problem?

John: Let us suppose, for the sake of this imaginary conversation, that I do not.

[Enter the CHORUS: three monks pursued by three dakinis.]

Monks, singing the Strophe: We three monks wish to cross this great expanse of water, to preach the Holy Dharma in the lands beyond. Alas, yonder raft can carry only two people.

John: Easy! Two of you go across, one comes back on the raft, picks up the other, you both cross to the far side, and you leave the raft behind.

Monks: Alas, we take our religious vows extremely seriously. Especially the one about… women.

Dakinis, singing the Antistrophe: We three dakinis could not help noticing that these monks look mighty… tasty. We’d surely like to… eat them.

Monks: No no! You must not… eat us!

Dakinis: If, at any time, on either bank, we outnumber the monks, they will not be able to resist our charms.

Monks: To maintain our vows, the number of monks on either bank must be equal to, or greater than the number of dakinis.

Dakinis: We also must cross the river, to continue our pursuit.

Monks: So, the problem is: what is the smallest number of raft trips that will get us all across the river, with no vow breakage?

Lucy: This is ridiculous.

Phil: And offensive.

John: In a moment, I will show how to formalize this classic puzzle in mathematical logic. But first, the informal solution. Uh… let’s see… 1. Two dakinis cross, leaving one with three monks on this side. 2. Then one dakini returns and picks up the remaining dakini and 3. takes her to the far bank. Now all the dakinis are on the far bank. 4. One dakini returns. 5. Two monks cross, and—

Marvin: Wrong! The answer is: zero.

John: … Zero?

Marvin: All the monks and dakinis can just walk over the bridge together.

John: You didn’t say there was a bridge!

Lucy: You didn’t look! It’s right in front of you!

Marvin, ignoring her: I didn’t say there wasn’t a bridge. You just invented this non-bridgeness out of thin air. You had no evidence for it, and no logical justification.

John: You should have told me! This isn’t a fair problem.

Phil: Life is complicated. There’s always lots of things you don’t know—and don’t know you don’t know.

Lucy: Although, you could look.

John: This is ridiculous. There’s no such thing as “non-bridgeness.” And you might as well say there could be a giant pterosaur that would carry everyone across.

Phil: Well, that would be ridiculous. However, realistic possibilities are still effectively infinite.

Lucy: You can’t plan for most of them. You have to improvise.

John: Any rational person would agree that I was solving the problem as stated. It’s implicitly implied that there’s no bridge. The general principle is: anything that isn’t explicitly stated, can be assumed to be false. I shall call this “circumscription.” It’s a vital extension to formal logic, to make it usable when you have incomplete knowledge.

Applied to action, we will assume that nothing changes unless we have knowledge that it will. We can call this “logical inertia.” When two of the Chorus cross the river on the raft, we can infer that the other four stay put, although that is not explicitly stated.

More generally, circumscription formalizes Occam’s Razor. When there are alternate possible explanations, it chooses the one that minimizes the number of violated assumptions.

[Enter DREW with a musket.]

Drew: Unfortunately, that won’t work.

John: Why not?

Drew, loading the musket: Because simply minimizing the number of violated assumptions does not always yield a unique solution, and the correct one may not even be among the minima.

Phil: Also, because there is, in fact, a bridge. The original reason to introduce circumscription was to logically infer that there isn’t one, which—


[FRED, a giant pterosaur, swoops down. Drew shoots at him, but Fred is unharmed. Fred circles back and carries all the monks and dakinis across the river.]

John: You missed!

Drew: My aim is true.

Fred, returning and settling beside them: Fortunately, the bullet fell out of the musket while you were all distracted by a giant pterosaur.

John: It’s logical to assume that the gun stayed loaded, and circumscription allows us to infer that.

Fred: It’s also logical to assume I stayed alive.

John: But we have explicit knowledge that Drew shot at you, which we should logically assume led to your death. Two against one!

Drew: But, as I was explaining before we were interrupted by a giant pterosaur, simply counting the number of assumptions doesn’t give correct results in all cases. What we need is a theory of causality, and circumscription doesn’t give you that. Look, let’s write out the formulae on a, um, whiteboard…?

[Fred offers a wing to write on. Marvin, John, and Drew continue their good-natured debate, as old friends do.]

Phil, to Lucy: You got this all on tape?


You’re right. This would be a

anders's picture

You’re right. This would be a horrible idea to put into a book.
Also I think atomized humor is much funnier than absurdist humor.

An Interesting Aside I Noticed in the Pengi Paper

Stephen's picture

Loved this, although I can see how it wouldn’t work well in the Eggplant book.

Related to this, I was looking through your original Pengi paper and noticed this intriguing line which you haven’t talked about on Meaningness yet:

We chose Pengo as a domain because it is utterly un- like those AI has historically taken as typical. It is one in which events move so quickly that little or no plan- ning is possible, and yet in which human experts can do very well. Many everyday domains are like this: driving to work, talking to a friend, or dancing. Yet undeniably other situations do require planning. In [Agre, in prepara- tion] we will outline a theory of planning that builds on the theory of activity that Pengi partly implements. Planning, on this view, is the internalization of social communication about activity.

Did you ever get to this part of your work? This sounds interesting to me. Also, this idea could be a good signal to more die-hard rationalists that you’re not just telling them all to become dancers and stop planning things :).

Plans as communications

The Pengi paper citation there is to Phil’s thesis… I can’t remember whether it ended up talking about this or not.

A paper that did was our joint “What are plans for?”. It’s a long string of IOUs that we mostly didn’t deliver on. But the ideas were good ones, I think!

I’d read a whole book of these dialogues

Saul's picture

Some of my favorite philosophy is written in a dialogical joke format, so I wouldn’t rule it out entirely - this is a good one! However, I guess it’s a very small venn diagram segment of readers that would get everything in here - I’m sure I’m missing at least one or two bits :)

This was fun.

Joshua Brule's picture

This was fun.

Also, it, indirectly, cleared something up for me. “Why”, I wondered, “Would early postmodern thinkers write their ideas as obfuscatory riddles instead of, you know, understandable prose?”

I think it’s both more fun to write and read. I suppose I could appreciate that in the abstract, but this made it clearer.

Philosophical jokes

Saul — Glad you liked it! I realized only after posting it that I was unconsciously imitating Gödel, Escher, Bach, which is full of dialogs in this style. (Which he took from Lewis Carroll, who was actually the logician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.) You might enjoy that if you haven’t read it.

Joshua — Yes; they were writing for extremely smart, overeducated, highly-motivated geeks who would enjoy the style. I suppose they never for an instant imagined their work would become Official State Orthodoxy in the way it has, and therefore preached in the market square and forced on dull undergraduates.

My favorite example, although it predates pomo by many decades, is Thorstein Weblen’s Theory of the Leisure Class. Every sentence is an exquisite bejeweled puzzle box. You turn it over and over and find the hidden button and it pops open to reveal a tiny delicate insight. You have to work for it, but wow is it worth it.

Please, please, please...

Joseph 's picture

Finish and publish the Eggplant book in paperback.

Include dialogues like the one here, it instantly reminded me of GEB, and helped (as another tool) to make the circumscription idea more complete.

Add new comment


You are reading a metablog post, dated June 3, 2018.

The next metablog post is How should we evaluate progress in AI?.

The previous metablog post was Post-apocalyptic life in American health care.

This page’s topics are History of ideas and Rationalism.

General explanation: Meaningness is a hypertext book (in progress), plus a “metablog” that comments on it. The book begins with an appetizer. Alternatively, you might like to look at its table of contents, or some other starting points. Classification of pages by topics supplements the book and metablog structures. Terms with dotted underlining (example: meaningness) show a definition if you click on them. Pages marked with ⚒ are still under construction. Copyright ©2010–2020 David Chapman. Some links are part of Amazon Affiliate Program.