What happens if it only considers the action if it both failed to find “PA+A()=x” inconsistent and found a proof that PA+A()=x proves U()=x?
Do an inconsistency check first and only consider/compare the action if the inconsistency check fails.
(If PA is strong enough to prove what the agent will do, then PA + “A()=x” is only consistent for one particular action x, and the specific action x for which it is consistent will be up for grabs, depending upon which proof the inconsistency checker finds.)
PA + “A() = x” may be inconsistent (proving, e.g., that 0=1 etc.).
What happens if it only considers the action if it both failed to find “PA+A()=x” inconsistent and found a proof that PA+A()=x proves U()=x? Do an inconsistency check first and only consider/compare the action if the inconsistency check fails.
Then you get spurious proofs of inconsistency :-)
(If PA is strong enough to prove what the agent will do, then PA + “A()=x” is only consistent for one particular action x, and the specific action x for which it is consistent will be up for grabs, depending upon which proof the inconsistency checker finds.)
Got it. Thank you!