DeepAI
Log In Sign Up

Algebra of Concurrent Games

We introduce parallelism into the basic algebra of games to model concurrent game algebraically. Parallelism is treated as a new kind of game operation. The resulted algebra of concurrent games can be used widely to reason the parallel systems.

READ FULL TEXT VIEW PDF

page 1

page 2

page 3

page 4

07/05/2019

Operational Semantics of Games

We introduce operational semantics into games. And based on the operatio...
06/27/2019

Truly Concurrent Bisimilarities are Game Equivalent

We design games for truly concurrent bisimilarities, including strongly ...
06/08/2018

Ergodic Mean-Payoff Games for the Analysis of Attacks in Crypto-Currencies

Crypto-currencies are digital assets designed to work as a medium of exc...
02/08/2021

EigenGame Unloaded: When playing games is better than optimizing

We build on the recently proposed EigenGame that views eigendecompositio...
02/28/2019

Fast Concurrent Data Sketches

Data sketches are approximate succinct summaries of long streams. They a...
02/22/2020

Concurrent Kleene Algebra with Observations: from Hypotheses to Completeness

Concurrent Kleene Algebra (CKA) extends basic Kleene algebra with a para...
07/07/2021

The Quantitative Collapse of Concurrent Games with Symmetry

We explore links between the thin concurrent games of Castellan, Clairam...

1 Introduction

The combination of games and logic (especially computational logic) always exists two ways [3]

: one is the usual usage of game theory to interpret logic, such as the well-known game semantics; the other is to use logic to understand game theory, such as game logic

[1] [2] [4]. The basic algebra of games [5] [6] is also a way to use logic to interpret games algebraically.

Since concurrency is a fundamental activity pattern in nature, it exists not only in computational systems, but also in any process in nature. Concurrent games [7] [8] [9] make the game theory to capture concurrency. But the logic of concurrent games is still missing.

In this paper, we extend the basic algebra of games [5] [6] to discuss the logic of concurrent games algebraically. This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we repeat the main concepts and conclusions of the basic algebra of games for the convenience of the reader. We give the algebra of concurrent games in Section 3. And finally, in Section 4, we conclude this paper.

2 Basic Algebra of Games

For the convenience of the readers, in this section, we repeat the definitions and main results of Basic Algebra of Games (abbreviated BAG) in [5] and [6], for they are used in the following sections.

Definition 2.1 (Game language).

The game language consists of:

  1. a set of atomic games , and a special idle atomic game ;

  2. game operations choice of first player , choice of second player , dualization and composition of games .

Atomic games and their duals are called literals.

Definition 2.2 (Game terms).

The game terms are defined inductively as follows:

  • every atomic game is a game term;

  • if are game terms, then , , and are all game terms.

Definition 2.3 (Outcome conditions).

are called game boards, where is the set of states and are outcome relations, which satisfy the following two forcing conditions:

  1. monotonicity (MON): for any , and , if , then ;

  2. consistency (CON): for any , if , then not .

And the following optional conditions:

  1. termination (FIN): for any , then , and the class of terminating game boards are denoted FIN;

  2. determinacy (DET): iff , and the class of determined game boards are denoted DET.

The outcome relation for any game term can be defined inductively according to the structure of .

Definition 2.4 (Included).

For game terms and on game board , if , then is i-included in on , denoted ; if and , then is included in on , denoted ; if for any , then is called a valid term inclusion, denoted .

If and are assigned the same outcome relation in , then they are equivalent on , denoted ; if for any game board , then is a valid term identity, denoted .

The axioms of BAG are shown in Table 1.

No. Axiom
Table 1: Axioms of BAG
Definition 2.5 (Canonical terms).

The canonical terms can be defined as follows:

  1. and are canonical terms;

  2. is a canonical term, where is a literal and is a game term.

Theorem 2.6 (Elimination theorem 1).

Every game term is equivalent to a canonical game term in .

Definition 2.7 (Isomorphic).

Two canonical terms and , if one can be obtained from the other by means of successive permutations of conjuncts (and disjuncts) within the same ’s (and ’s) in subterms.

Definition 2.8 (Embedding).

The embedding of canonical terms is defined inductively as follows:

  • ;

  • if are literals and are canonical terms, embeds into iff and ;

  • embeds into , if for every there is some such that ;

  • for and , iff every disjunct of embeds into some disjunct of .

Definition 2.9 (Minimal canonical terms).

The minimal canonical terms are defined inductively as follows:

  • is a minimal canonical term;

  • for a canonical term with all are minimal canonical terms, then is minimal canonical term if:

    1. does not occur in ;

    2. None of is unless is ;

    3. No conjunct occurring in embeds into another conjunct from the same conjunction;

    4. No disjunct in embeds into another disjunct of .

Theorem 2.10 (Elimination theorem 2).

Every game term is equivalent to a minimal canonical game term in .

Theorem 2.11 (Completeness theorem).

The minimal canonical terms and are equivalent iff they are isomorphic.

Proof.

See the proof in [5] and [6], the proof in [5] is based on modal logic and that in [6] is in a pure algebraic way. ∎

3 Algebra of Concurrent Games

Concurrent games [7] [8] [9] mean that players can play games simultaneously. For two atomic games and in parallel denoted , the outcomes may be , or , or they are played simultaneously. Since and may be played simultaneously, must be treated as fundamental game operation. In this section, we will add game operation into the basic algebra of games, and the new formed algebra is called Algebra of Concurrent Games, abbreviated ACG.

Definition 3.1 (Game language with parallelism).

The new kind of game operation is added into the game language in Definition 2.1.

Definition 3.2 (Game terms with parallelism).

If and are game terms, then is also a game term in Definition 2.2.

The definitions of Outcome conditions and Included are the same as those in Section 2.

For concurrent games, the following axioms in Table 2 should be added into Table 1.

No. Axiom
Table 2: Axioms of ACG
Definition 3.3 (Canonical terms with parallelism).

The canonical terms can be defined as follows:

  1. and are canonical terms;

  2. is a canonical term, where is a literal and is a game term.

Theorem 3.4 (Elimination theorem 1 with parallelism).

Every game term is equivalent to a canonical game term in .

Proof.

Similarly to the proof of Theorem 2.6 in [5], it is sufficient to induct on the structure of game terms, and the new case is . ∎

Definition 3.5 (Isomorphic with parallelism).

Two canonical terms and , if one can be obtained from the other by means of successive permutations of conjuncts (and disjuncts) within the same ’s (and ’s) in subterms.

Definition 3.6 (Embedding with parallelism).

The embedding of canonical terms is defined inductively as follows:

  • ;

  • if are literals and are canonical terms, embeds into iff , , and ;

  • if are literals and are canonical terms, embeds into iff and ;

  • embeds into , if for every there is some such that ;

  • for and , iff every disjunct of embeds into some disjunct of .

Definition 3.7 (Minimal canonical terms with parallelism).

The minimal canonical terms are defined inductively as follows:

  • is a minimal canonical term;

  • for a canonical term with all are minimal canonical terms, then is minimal canonical term if:

    1. does not occur in ;

    2. None of is unless is ;

    3. No conjunct occurring in embeds into another conjunct from the same conjunction;

    4. No disjunct in embeds into another disjunct of .

Theorem 3.8 (Elimination theorem 2).

Every game term is equivalent to a minimal canonical game term in .

Proof.

Similarly to the proof of Theorem 2.10 in [5], it is sufficient to induct on the structure of game terms according to the definition of minimal canonical game terms, the new case is . ∎

Since the Elimination theorem holds, the completeness of ACG only need to discuss the relationship among the minimal canonical terms.

Theorem 3.9 (Completeness theorem).

The minimal canonical terms and are equivalent iff they are isomorphic.

Proof.

Similarly to the proof of Theorem 2.11 in [5]:

  1. firstly, translate ACG to the same modal logic in [5];

  2. secondly, prove the translation preserve validity;

  3. Finally, get the completeness result.

The only difference is the translation of , because two game terms and may be in race condition, denoted , for a game term and the corresponding modal logic formula , the translation of is:

  1. if , then or ;

  2. else .

4 Conclusions

We introduce parallelism in the basic algebra of games [5] [6] to model concurrent game algebraically. The resulted algebra ACG can be used reasoning parallel systems with game theory support.

References

  • [1] M. Kaneko, and T. Nagashima. (1996). Game logic and its applications i. Studia Logica, 58(2), 273-303.
  • [2]

    R. Parikh. (1985). The logic of games and its applications. Selected Papers of the International Conference on Foundations of Computation Theory on Topics in the Theory of Computation. Elsevier North-Holland, Inc.

  • [3] J. Van Benthem. (2014). Logic in Games. The MIT Press.
  • [4] S. Enqvist, H. H. Hansen, C. Kupke, J. Marti, and Y. Venema. (2019). Completeness for game logic. arXiv:1904.07691.
  • [5] V. Goranko. (2003). The basic algebra of game equivalences. Studia Logica, 75(2), 221-238.
  • [6] Y. Venema. (2003). Representation of game algebras. Studia Logica, 75(2), 239-256.
  • [7] L. d. Alfaro, M. Faella, Th. A. Henzinger, R. Majumdar, and M. Stoelinga. (2003). The element of surprise in timed games. In Proc. 14th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR 03), Springer LNCS 2761, 142-156.
  • [8] E. Asarin, O. Maler, A. Pnueli, and J. Sifakis. Controller synthesis for timed automata. (1998). In Proc. IFAC Symposium on System Structure and Control. Elsevier Science, 469-474.
  • [9] P. Bouyer, R. Brenguier, and N. Markey. (2010). Nash equilibria for reachability objectives in multi-player timed games. In Proc. 21th International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR 10), LNCS 6269, p. 192-206.