How good is a strategy in a game with Nature?

DOI10.1109/LICS.2015.62MaRDI QIDQ4635840zbMATH OpenFDO

Authors Arnaud Carayol, Olivier Serre

Publication date 23 April 2018

Published in 2015 30th Annual ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.09942

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Semantics in the theory of computing (68Q55) Other game-theoretic models (91A40) Games involving topology, set theory, or logic (91A44)

Abstract: We consider games with two antagonistic players --- 'Elo"ise (modelling a program) and Ab'elard (modelling a byzantine environment) --- and a third, unpredictable and uncontrollable player, that we call Nature. Motivated by the fact that the usual probabilistic semantics very quickly leads to undecidability when considering either infinite game graphs or imperfect-information, we propose two alternative semantics that leads to decidability where the probabilistic one fails: one based on counting and one based on topology.

Recommendations

• How Good Is a Strategy in a Game with Nature?
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3916056
• Natural strategic ability
• Randomness for free
• Randomness for free

Cited in

(7)

• Baire category quantifier in monadic second order logic
• Fair adversaries and randomization in two-player games
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3916056 (Why is no real title available?)
• Monadic Second Order Logic with Measure and Category Quantifiers
• Quantifying Bounds in Strategy Logic
• How Good Is a Strategy in a Game with Nature?
• Counting branches in trees using games

This page was built for publication: How good is a strategy in a game with Nature?

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4635840)