Intelligent System of Paraconsistent Logic to Control Autonomous Moving Robots

Cláudio Rodrigo Torres

Germano Lambert-Torres Jair Minoro Abe
Luiz Eduardo Borges da Silva
Federal University of Itajuba Institute of Science and Technology
Av. BPS 1303 University Paulista
Itajuba – 37500-000 - MG BRAZIL
BRAZIL [email protected]
{germano, leborges}@unifei.edu.br

Abstract –This paper shows a controller based on the evidential - Excluded middle (or third party) principle: from two
annotated paraconsistent logic E – Paracontrol. The contradictory propositions, one of them must be true.
Paracontrol is a variation of the logic analyzer. This work also In 1910, the Russian logician Nicolai A. Vasil’év (1880 –
shows an autonomous mobile robot, which is named Emmy II, 1940) and the Polish logician Jan Lukasiewicz (1878 – 1956)
in order to demonstrate the Paracontrol’s new properties. As an independently published papers dealing with logics that
innovation, the Paracontrol presents besides the characteristics admitted contradictions in the Aristotle level, though.
of the previous controller (manipulation of uncertainties,
In 1948, the Polish logician Stanislaw Jaskowski (1906 –
contradiction and paracompleteness information), the speed
control in the various robot’s actions
1965) formalized with base on the discursive logic, a
paraconsistent propositional calculus denominated discursive
propositional calculus. Independently, in 1954, the Brazilian
I. INTRODUCTION logician Newton C.A. da Costa (1929 - ) developed many
paraconsistent systems, containing all the usual logic levels:
The current paper presents some adding characteristics to propositional calculus, predicate calculus, predicate calculus
the controller. It can be classified as sophistication and an with equality, description calculus and higher-order calculus
improvement related to the movement of the robot Emmy. (under the form of the set theory).
The proposed control system, which maintained the name With the breed of alternative logic systems to the classic
Paracontrol [1], uses six (6) logic states and presents new logic, nowadays, we can conceive the Logic as a science
commands that did not exist in Emmy. comprising many logic systems (classic, paraconsistent,
Speed control in several actions: for example, when an fuzzy etc). Therefore, not strictly, Logic can be divided into
obstacle is detected ahead, the new Paracontrol allows the two classes: deductive and inductive.
gradual breaking of the robot, allowing a “gentler” halt. The deductive logic studies the interferences logically
Moreover, when the robot faces contradictory data as needed (or valid), in a way that, if the premises are true, the
aforementioned, the robot turns around more “gently”. conclusion necessarily is also true. This logic category, by its
The new controller permits backward movements. In turn, can be divided into two wide groups: the classic
certain situations, the robot can move backward or turn with deductive logic and the non-classic deductive logic.
a fixed wheel and another one turning backward, permitting The nuclear part of the classic deductive logic is about the
the robot to perform gentler movements than Emmy’s. study of the first-order predicate calculus and some of its
The combination of both characteristics above, more the important sub-systems, such as the classic propositional
other ones presented in the original prototype, makes the new calculus and the classic implicative calculus.
prototype a robot with more sophisticated movements than The non-classic deductive logic can be divided into two
the previous one. Therefore, a step further is taken to meet types of studies:
the expectations of an autonomous moving robot. Such genre The one that complements the scope of the classic logic. It
of robot built using the new Paracontrol is denominated is included in this category various modal systems, such as:
Emmy II. knowledge logic, deontic logic, temporal logic and others;
the one that substitutes the classic logic in some of its points
or in the majority of its domain. This last branch is called
II. HIGHLIGHTS IN LOGIC rival or heterodox logic. It is included in this category: the
various multi-valued logic, fuzzy logic, paraconsistent logic,
The classic logic rose, as evidenced, by 384-322 B.C. with noted logics etc.
Aristotle and presents the following basic principles, among As in this paper, the paraconsistent logic presents an
others: important role, we elaborated the following considerations.
- Identity principle: every object is identical to itself.
- Contradiction principle: (some authors denominate it non-
contradiction principle): from two contradictory III. THE PARACONSISTENT LOGIC
propositions (i.e., one is the denial of the other) one of them
must be false. The paraconsistent logic can be defined as follows: let T a
theory grounded on the logic L, and it is supposed that the

1-4244-0136-4/06/$20.00 '2006 IEEE 4009

Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE OESTE DO PARANA. Downloaded on November 16,2024 at 14:09:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 language in L and T contains a symbol for the denial (if there
is more than one denial, one of them shall be chosen by its 1) Speed control in various actions: for example, detecting
logic-mathematical characteristics) [2-5]. The theory T is an obstacle ahead, the new Paracontrol allows the
said to be inconsistent if it holds contradictory theorems, i.e., gradual breaking of the robot, permitting a “gentler halt”.
such as the one is the denial of the other; in the opposite, T is Moreover, when facing contradictory data such as the
said to be consistent. The theory T is said to be trivial if all ones mentioned above, the robot turns “more gently”.
the formulas of L (or all the closed formulas of L) are 2) The new controller allows backward movements. In
theorems of T; on the hypothesis, T is called non-trivial. certain situations, the robot can move backward or turn
A logic L is called paraconsistent if it is the base for with one fixed wheel and the other one turning
inconsistent theories, but non-trivial [6]. backwards, allowing the robot to perform gentler
A logic L is denominated paracomplete if it can be the movements than Emmy’s.
subjacent logic of theories in which the contradiction 3) The combination of both characteristics above, more the
principle is broken, i.e., there are formulas that they and their others presented in the original prototype, makes the new
denials are both false. In a precise manner, a logic is said to prototype a robot with more sophisticated movements
be paracomplete if there are in it maximal non-trivial theories than the previous one; therefore, a is taken to meet he
that do not belong to a certain formula and its denial. expectations of an autonomous moving robot.
In the scope of the applications, an undesirable question of
the classic logic is its fragility. As effect, it can be The autonomous moving robot built with the new
demonstrated that the presence of a contradiction in the Paracontrol is denominated Emmy II.
classic logic makes trivial any theory based on it. As
consequence, the classic logic is useless to manipulate the
concept of inconsistency in a direct manner, hindering a non- V. THE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE
trivial treatment in the presence of contradictions. As result, AUTONOMOUS MOVING ROBOT EMMY II
when we need to deal with inconsistencies in a direct
manner, we need to use paraconsistent logics [5-8]. The platform used to assemble the robot Emmy II holds
approximately 25 cm of diameter and 23 cm of height. The
main components of robot Emmy II are a microcontroller of
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE CONTROL SYSTEM the family 8051, two ultra-sound sensors and two continuous
current motors. Figure 1 shows the basic structure of the
The studied control system uses six logic states instead of robot Emmy II.
12 logic states used in Emmy’s Paracontrol. In addition, it
holds a speed control, which does not occurs in the robot
Wheel 1
Emmy [5,9]. The Paracontrol is a logic controller that
provides the materialization of the Para-analyzer algorithm in
an electric-electronic circuit. The Para-analyzer holds a
structure based on the Evidential Paraconsistent Logic, which
will be further detailed later, presents two inputs (one, the Robot
favorable evidence and other, the contrary evidence) and
displays 12 states as outputs (including among them, the
states true, false, inconsistent and paracomplete, in addition
to “intermediary” states) that constitute decision taking states Wheel 2
of robot Emmy. Fig 1. Basic Structure of the robot Emmy II.
As previously mentioned, Emmy holds two ultra-sonic
sensors: one to determine the degree of favorable evidence The ultra-sound sensors are responsible for the verification
and the other to determine the level of contrary evidence. of obstacles ahead. The signals generated by the sensors are
With Paracontrol, Emmy can act adequately to certain sent to the microcontroller. The values of the level of
“special” situations, such as the ones facing contradictory
favorable evidence (µ) and of the level of contrary evidence
data: one sensor can detect an obstacle ahead (for example, a
wall) while another one cannot detect any hurdle (for (λ) in the proposition “The front of the robot is free” are
example, the robot can be heading to an open door). If this determined by the microcontroller with base in the signals
situation occurs, Emmy stops and turns 45° towards the received from the ultra-sound sensors. The microcontroller
unblocked direction. Therefore, if in the new measuring, also determines the movement to be executed by the robot,
there is no inconsistency, it can take another decision, for that is, which motor shall be activated, with base in the
example, to move ahead, turning round the obstacle. The decision from the Paracontrol.
current paper presents some additional characteristics to the
controller, able to be classified as sophistication and
improvement in relation to the movement of the robot
Emmy. The proposed control system, for which we will
maintain the name Paracontrol, uses six (6) logic states and
presents new commands that did not exist in Emmy:

4010
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE OESTE DO PARANA. Downloaded on November 16,2024 at 14:09:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2. To go back in a straight line. Motors 1 and 2 are activated
backward at the same time with the same speed.
3. To turn right. Only motor 1 is activated forward with
motor 2 deactivated.
4. To turn left. Only motor 2 is activated forward with motor
1 deactivated
Microcontroller 8051 5. To turn right. Only motor 2 is activated backward with
motor 1 deactivated.
6. To turn left. Only motor 1 is activated backward with
motor 2 deactivated.

The signal from sensor S1 is considered as a level of

favorable evidence and the signal from sensor S2 is
Fig. 2. Diagram in simplified blocks. considered as a level of contrary evidence in the proposition
“The front of the robot is free”. When there is an obstacle
Figure 2 shows the diagram in simplified blocks of the next to sensor S1, the level of favorable evidence is low and
autonomous moving robot Emmy II; while Figure 3 shows when the obstacle is far from sensor S1, the level of
the frontal and the lower views of the robot favorable evidence is high. On the other side, when there is
an obstacle next to sensor S2, the level contrary evidence is
high and when the obstacle is in front of sensor 2, the level of
contrary evidence is low.
The robot decides which movement to choose based in the
values of the level of favorable evidence, in the level of
contrary evidence and in the proposed control system in
accordance to the lattice with the respective extreme and
non-extreme logic states in Figure 4.

Motor 2 Motor 1

Fig. 4. Lattice with the logic states used by the robot Emmy II.

Fig. 3. The frontal and lower views of the robot Emmy II. The verification of the values of the level of favorable
evidence and the level of contrary evidence, decision taking
and motors’ moving is performed sequentially. Such
VI. PROGRAMMING OF THE ROBOT EMMY II sequence of actions is almost imperceptible when observing
the robot moving.
The main component of the robot Emmy II is the For each state, the respective decision is the following:
microcontroller 89C52 because it is responsible to determine • State V: To go ahead. Motors 1 and 2 are activated
the distances between the ultra-sound sensors and the forward at the same time.
obstacles located in front of the robot, to calculate the values
• State F: To go back. Motors 1 and 2 are activated
of the levels of favorable evidence and contrary evidence in
backward at the same time.
the proposition “The front of the robot is free”, to execute the
algorithm Para-analyzer and to generate signals to activate • State ⊥: To turn left. Only motor 1 is activated ahead.
the motors. The program is stored in the intern memory of Motor 2 remains deactivated.
the microcontroller 89C52.
The possible movements in this robot are the following:

1. To head in a straight line. Motors 1 and 2 are activated

forward at the same time with the same speed.

4011
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE OESTE DO PARANA. Downloaded on November 16,2024 at 14:09:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 turn right, activating only motor 2 backwards and
maintaining motor 2 deactivated

VII. TESTS

With the aim of verifying the functionality of the robot

Emmy II, four tests were carried out. Those tests are
basically done by counting how many times the robot crashes
against an obstacle when the robot moves in a determined
environment. The Figure 6 shows the environment where the
tests with the robot Emmy II were performed.
The time and the result of each test are the following:

• Test 1: Time: 3 minutes and 50 seconds. Result:

13 collisions.
• Test 2: Time: 3 minutes and 10 seconds. Result: 7
collisions.
• Test 3: Time: 3 minutes and 30 seconds. Result:
10 collisions.
• Test 4: Time: 2 minutes and 45 seconds. Result:
10 collisions.
Fig. 5. Tests environment of the robot Emmy II
The ultra-sound sensors used by the robot Emmy II do not
detect obstacles from a 7.5 cm distance or less. The ultra-
• State T: To turn left. Only motor 2 is activated ahead.
sound sensors emit sound waves and wait for the return of
Motor 1 remains deactivated.
such waves (echo) to determine the distance between the
• State QF→⊥: To turn right. Only motor 2 is activated obstacle and the sensor, but not always these waves return,
backward. Motor 1 remains deactivated. sometimes they reflect to another direction. Those are the
• State QF→T: To turn left. Only motor 1 is activated main causes for the collisions occurred during the tests. This
backward. Motor 2 remains deactivated. can be solved with the placement of more sensors and some
modifications in the Paracontrol.
The reasons for the choices are the following. When the The causes of the collisions are the following:
state is True (T), it means that the front of the robot shall be
free. Therefore, the robot can go ahead. • Test 1: Total of collisions: 13.
In the Inconsistency state (T), µ and λ assume high values Collisions caused by the reflex of sound waves: 4.
(i.e., belonging to the region T). This means that S1 is far of Collisions caused by the proximity to an obstacle: 9.
an obstacle and S2 is next to an obstacle, in this occasion, the • Test 2: Total of collisions: 7.
left side is freer than the right one. Therefore, the Collisions caused by the reflex of sound waves: 2.
recommended action is to turn left. Only motor 2 is activated Collisions caused by the proximity to an obstacle: 5.
ahead and motor 1 remains deactivated.
• Test 3: Total of collisions: 10.
When the state of Paracompleteness (⊥), µ and λ assume Collisions caused by the reflex of sound waves: 5.
low values. This means that S1 is next to an obstacle and S2 Collisions caused by the proximity to an obstacle: 5.
is far from an obstacle. In this occasion, the right side is freer
• Test 4: Total of collisions: 10.
than the left one. Therefore, the decision shall be to turn
Collisions caused by the reflex of sound waves: 4.
right. Only motor 1 is activated ahead and motor 2 remains
Collisions caused by the proximity to an obstacle: 6.
deactivated.
In the Falseness (F), an obstacle close to the robot hinders
Another possibility of collision exists when the falseness
the front of the robot. Therefore, the decision is to draw back.
state is detected. In this situation, the robot goes backward
In the Almost-Falseness state tending to the Inconsistent
for 0.4 seconds, as there are no sensors behind it, the
(QF→T), the front of the robot continues hindered, with the possibility of collision is high.
following characteristics: the obstacle is not so close as it is
in the Falsehood and the left side is freer that the right one.
The decision is to turn right, activating only the motor 1 VIII. CONCLUSIONS
backward and maintaining motor 2 deactivated.
In the Almost-falseness state tending to Paracomplete In the current article, a new version of the Paracontrol
(QF→⊥), the front of the robot continues hindered, in the (paraconsistent logic controller) based in the evidential
following way: the obstacle is not so close as in the falseness paraconsistent logic Eτ was submitted to appreciation. It was
and the right side is freer than the left one. The decision is to implemented the Paracontrol in an autonomous moving robot

4012
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE OESTE DO PARANA. Downloaded on November 16,2024 at 14:09:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 which was denominated Emmy II. The news is that such computer should think. In A.R. Anderson, N.D.
controller allows the speed control of the movements of the Belnap,and J.M. Dunn, editors, Entailment: The Logic
robot and enables adjustments through the software. The of Relevance and Necessity. Princeton University Press,
robot Emmy II executes backwards movements, which were 1992.
not possible in the robot Emmy. [3] G. Priest. Paraconsistent Belief Revision. In Theoria,
The running of the robot Emmy II showed to be very volume 67. 2001.
satisfactory. There, we could accomplish the implementation [4] G. Priest. Paraconsistent Logic. In D. Gabbay and F.
of an autonomous moving robot without external supervision Guenthner, editors, Handbook of Philosophical Logic,
and with its movement in a non-structured environment at a Volume 6. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2nd edition,
relatively low cost. 2002.
The controllers based in the paraconsistent noted logic are [5] J.I. da Silva Filho – Methods of Paraconsistent Logic
able to manipulate the uncertainty, contradiction and Aplications with Two Values LPA2v, Ph. D. Thesis,
paracompleteness in an efficient way, rendering possible new University of San Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil,1999.
researches with interesting outlooks. [6] G. Lambert-Torres, J.M. Abe, M.L. Mucheroni & P.E.
Cruvinel – Advances in Intelligent Systems and
Robotics, IOS Press, 2 volumes, Vol. I: 217p e Vol. II:
IX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT 240 p.,ISBN 1 58603 386-7, Amsterdam, Holanda,
2003.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the CNPq, a Brazilian [7] N.C.A. da Costa, J.M. Abe & V.S. Subrahmanian –
research funding agency, CAPES, in the form of research “Remarks on Annotated Logic”, Zeitschrift fur
scholarships, and FAPEMIG, a Minas Gerais State research Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik,
funding agency, which supported this work. Vol.37, pp.561-570, 1991.
[8] N.C.A. da Costa. On the Theory of Inconsistent Formal
Systems. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 15(4),
X. REFERENCES 1974.
[9] J.M. Abe & J.I. Da Silva Filho, Frontiers in Artificial
[1] J.M. Abe - Fundations of Anotated Logic, Ph. D. Thesis, Intelligence and Its Applications, IOS Press, Amsterdan,
University of San Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 1992. Ohmsha, Tokyo, Vol. 71, ISBN 1 58603 206 2 (IOS
[2] N.D. Belnap. A Useful Four-valued Logic: How a Press), 4 274 90476 8 C3000 (Ohmsha), ISSN 0922-
6389, 287p., 2001.

4013
Authorized licensed use limited to: UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE OESTE DO PARANA. Downloaded on November 16,2024 at 14:09:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.