Timeline for Games that never begin
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Mar 21, 2022 at 11:12 | history | suggested | The Amplitwist | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
fixed broken link to springerlink.com
|
| Mar 21, 2022 at 8:49 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Mar 21, 2022 at 11:12 | |||||
| Nov 12, 2012 at 21:55 | comment | added | Noah Schweber | Ah, I think I see - in Shelah's semantics, it's not quite a game, in the normal sense, although it still feels slightly like a game. Alice (existential) plays a collection of believed-to-be Skolem functions which depend on only the relevant variables; then Bob (universal) plays a single variable assignment on the universally-quantified variables; then plugging Bob's variable assignment into Alice's "Skolem" functions gives a variable assignment (=run) for the whole thing, at which point the validity of the matrix can be checked. Does this sound correct? I'm not sure. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 21:20 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | That is a good idea of having the strategies only depend on the opponent's play, but it doesn't avoid the kind of issues in my answer. For example, it is not true that any two such strategies have a common play: consider the strategy for Alice that plays $1$, if Bob had played infinitely many $0$s, and otherwise $0$; versus the strategy for Bob that just copies Alice's last move. There is no common play for these two strategies, since if the tail has infinitely many $0$, then it should have been all $1$s, and it not, then it should have been all $0$s. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 19:14 | history | answered | Noah Schweber | CC BY-SA 3.0 |