Information AboutDeterminacy |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT DETERMINACY | |
| determinacydeterminacy | |
| set theory | |
|
BASIC NOTIONS Games The first sort of game we shall consider is the two-player game of perfect information of length ω, in which the players play Natural Number s. In this sort of game we consider two players, often imaginatively named ''I'' and ''II'', who take turns playing natural numbers, with ''I'' going first. They play "forever"; that is, their plays are indexed by the natural numbers. When they're finished, a predetermined condition decides which player won. This condition need not be specified by any definable ''rule''; it may simply be an arbitrary (infinitely long) Lookup Table saying who has won given a particular sequence of plays. More formally, consider a subset ''A'' of Baire Space ; recall that the latter consists of all ω-sequences of natural numbers. Then in the game G''A'', ''I'' plays a natural number ''a''0, then ''II'' plays ''a''1, then ''I'' plays ''a''2, and so on. Then ''I'' wins the game if and only if : and otherwise ''II'' wins. ''A'' is then called the ''payoff set'' of G''A''. It is assumed that each player can see all moves preceding each of his moves, and also knows the winning condition. Strategies Informally, a strategy for a player is a way of playing in which his plays are entirely determined by the foregoing plays. Again, such a "way" does not have to be capable of being captured by any explicable "rule", but may simply be a lookup table. More formally, a strategy for player ''I'' (for a game in the sense of the preceding subsection) is a function that accepts as an argument any finite sequence of natural numbers, of even length, and returns a natural number. If σ is such a strategy and <a0,…,a2n-1> is a sequence of plays, then σ(<a0,…,a2n-1>) is the next play ''I'' will make, if he is following the strategy σ. Strategies for ''II'' are just the same, substituting "odd" for "even". Note that we have said nothing, as yet, about whether a strategy is in any way ''good''. A strategy might direct a player to make aggressively bad moves, and it would still be a strategy. In fact it is not necessary even to know the winning condition for a game, to know what strategies exist for the game. Winning strategies A strategy is winning if the player following it must necessarily win, no matter what his opponent plays. For example if σ is a strategy for ''I'', then σ is a winning strategy for ''I'' in the game G''A'' if, for any sequence of natural numbers to be played by ''II'', say <a1,a3,a5,…>, the sequence of plays produced by σ when ''II'' plays thus, namely : is an element of ''A''. Determined games A game is determined if there is a winning strategy for one of the players. (Note that there cannot be a winning strategy for ''both'' players for the same game, for if there were, the two strategies could be played against each other. The resulting outcome would then, by hypothesis, be a win for both players, but that is impossible.) DETERMINACY FROM ELEMENTARY CONSIDERATIONS Familiar real-world games of perfect information, such as Chess or Tic-tac-toe , are always finished in a finite number of moves. If such a game is modified to assign a draw to a particular player, it is always determined. The condition that the game is always over (ie all possible extensions of the finite position result in a win for the same player) in a finite number of moves corresponds to the topological condition that the set ''A'' giving the winning condition for G''A'' is Clopen in the Topology of Baire Space . For example, modifying the rules of chess to make drawn games a win for Black makes chess a determined game. As it happens, chess has a finite number of positions and a draw-by-repetition rules, so with these modified rules, if play continues long enough without White having won, then Black can eventually force a win. It is an instructive exercise to figure out how to represent such games as games in the context of this article. The proof that such games are determined is rather simple: Player ''I'' simply plays ''not to lose''; that is, he plays to make sure that player ''II'' does not have a winning strategy ''after'' ''I'''s move. If player ''I'' ''cannot'' do this, then it means player ''II'' had a winning strategy from the beginning. On the other hand, if player ''I'' ''can'' play in this way, then he must win, because the game will be over after some finite number of moves, and he can't have lost at that point. This proof does not actually require that the game ''always'' be over in a finite number of moves, only that it be over in a finite number of moves whenever ''II'' wins. That condition, topologically, is that the set ''A'' is Closed . This fact--that all closed games are determined--is called the ''Gale-Stewart theorem''. Note that by symmetry, all open games are determined as well. (A game is '''open''' if ''I'' can win only by winning in a finite number of moves.) DETERMINACY FROM ZFC In 1975 , Donald A. Martin proved that all Borel games are determined; that is, if ''A'' is a Borel subset of Baire space, then G''A'' is determined. This is the best result possible using ZFC alone, in the sense that the determinacy of the next higher Wadge Class is not provable in ZFC. Martin's proof uses the Powerset Axiom in an essential way. There is a level-by-level result detailing what fragment of the powerset axiom is necessary to guarantee determinacy through what level of the Borel Hierarchy . DETERMINACY AND LARGE CARDINALS There is an intimate relationship between determinacy and Large Cardinal s. In general, stronger large cardinal axioms prove the determinacy of larger Pointclass es, higher in the Wadge Hierarchy , and the determinacy of such pointclasses, in turn, proves the existence of Inner Model s of slightly weaker large cardinal axioms than those used to prove the determinacy of the pointclass in the first place. Measurable Cardinal s It follows from the existence of a measurable cardinal that every Analytic game (also called a Σ11 game) is determined, or equivalently that every coanalytic (or '''Π'''11) game is determined. (See Projective Hierarchy for definitions.) Actually an apparently stronger result follows: If there is a measurable cardinal, then every game in the first ω2 levels of the Difference Hierarchy over Π11 is determined. This is only apparently stronger; ω2-Π11 determinacy turns out to be equivalent to Π11 determinacy. From the existence of more measurable cardinals, one can prove the determinacy of more levels of the difference hierarchy over Π11. Woodin Cardinal s If there is a Woodin cardinal with a measurable cardinal above it, then Π12 determinacy holds. More generally, if there are ''n'' Woodin cardinals with a measurable cardinal above them all, then Π1''n''+1 determinacy holds. From Π1''n''+1 determinacy, it follows that there is a Transitive Inner Model which satisfies that there are ''n'' Woodin cardinals. Projective Determinacy If there are infinitely many Woodin cardinals, then projective determinacy holds; that is, every game whose winning condition is a Projective Set is determined. From projective determinacy it follows that, for every natural number ''n'', there is a transitive inner model which satisfies that there are ''n'' Woodin cardinals. Axiom Of Determinacy The axiom of determinacy, or '''AD''', asserts that ''every'' two-player game of perfect information of length ω, in which the players play naturals, is determined. AD is provably false from ZFC; using the Axiom Of Choice one may prove the existence of a non-determined game. However, if there are infinitely many Woodin cardinals with a measurable above them all, then L(R) is a model of ZF that satisfies AD. CONSEQUENCES OF DETERMINACY Regularity properties for sets of reals If ''A'' is a subset of Baire space such that the Banach-Mazur Game for ''A'' is determined, then either ''II'' has a winning strategy, in which case ''A'' is Meager , or ''I'' has a winning strategy, in which case ''A'' is Comeager on some open neighborhood. This does not quite imply that ''A'' has the such that every game in Γ is determined, then every set of reals in Γ has the property of Baire. In fact this result is not optimal; by considering the Unfolded Banach-Mazur Game we can show that determinacy of Γ (for Γ with sufficient closure properties) implies that every set of reals that is the ''projection'' of a set in Γ has the property of Baire. So for example the existence of a measurable cardinal implies Π11 determinacy, which in turn implies that every '''Σ'''12 set of reals has the property of Baire. By considering other games, we can show that Π1''n'' determinacy implies that every '''Σ'''1''n''+1 set of reals has the property of Baire, is Lebesgue Measurable (in fact Universally Measurable ) and has the Perfect Set Property . Periodicity theorems
Properties of the Wadge hierarchy : ''This subsection is yet to be written'' MORE GENERAL GAMES : ''This section is still to be written'' Games in which the objects played are not natural numbers : ''This subsection is still to be written'' Games played on Trees : ''This subsection is still to be written'' Long games : ''This subsection is still to be written'' Games of imperfect information ( Blackwell Game s) : ''This subsection is still to be written'' QUASISTRATEGIES AND QUASIDETERMINACY : ''This section is still to be written'' FOOTNOTES |
|
|