The first interpretation of the frame problem is about mathematical entailment. If it isn't stated that a particular predicate on situations is preserved by tak

The first interpretation of the frame problem is about mathematical entailment. If it isn't stated that a particular predicate on situations is preserved by taking actions, then it does not follow that the state is preserved. If you want to reason about situations in first order logic you need to pin the given theory down so that non-effects become deducible from the axioms. Either you can introduce frame axioms, which are tedious and slow, or you can try to solve the problem in a more sophisticated way. It's definitely not a trivial problem. A problem about logic in the narrow technical sense often has analogies in less technical philosophical considerations. That's what the rest of the article is about. You're taking too much for granted about how to formalize reasoning to much how humans intuitively go about it.