0
$\begingroup$

Suppose you replace the usual success conditions for a supermartingale (lim sup is infinite) with the requirement that the actual limit is infinite, e.g. a supermartingale $B$ succeeds on $X \in 2^\omega$ just if

$$\lim_{n \to \infty} B(X\restriction_n) = \infty$$

I'm 90% sure that you don't get a 'valid' randomness notion because any sufficiently generic real should qualify. However, if I had to guess I'd think this notion turns out to be equivalent to Kurtz 'randomness' (avoids all $\Pi^0_1$ null sets). Since I'm guess this is a known result and my brain is feeling super foggy I thought I would ask

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Assuming you mean a c.e. (super)martingale, this is just Martin-Löf randomness. What needs to be shown is that, for every non-random real, there is a martingale which limit-succeeds on the real. You can see this from the proof of the equivalence of the martingale definition and the Kolmogorov complexity definition:

Let $U$ be a universal prefix-free machine. For $\sigma \in 2^{<\omega}$, define $M_\sigma$ to be the (computable) martingale that begins with capital 1 and bets it all on $\sigma$, and bets evenly afterwards. So $M(\tau) = 2^{|\sigma|}$ for any $\tau$ extending $\sigma$. Define $M = \sum_{U(\rho)=\sigma} 2^{-|\rho|}M_\sigma$. This is a c.e. martingale (with starting capital $\Omega$). For any non-random $X$, for any $d$, there is an $n$ with $K(X\upharpoonright n) < n - d$. So there is some $\rho$ with $|\rho| < n - d$ and $U(\rho) = X\upharpoonright n$. So $2^{-|\rho|} M_{X\upharpoonright n}$ is a summand in the definition of $M$, and $2^{-|\rho|}M_{X\upharpoonright n}(\tau) > 2^d$ for any $\tau$ extending $X\upharpoonright n$. So $\lim_{n \to \infty} M(X\upharpoonright n) = \infty$.

Note that this construction shows why your generic intuition is wrong: for every $d$, there is a neighborhood of $X$ on which the martingale never again dips below $2^d$. So generics can't get out of it.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ i kept thinking this was the case but assumed I was missing something when Nies listed the equivalent conditions and they all mention infinitely often or order functions which confused me. But maybe this one was just less useful $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 16, 2020 at 20:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .