Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T10:25:33.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection functions, bar recursion and backward induction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2010

MARTÍN ESCARDÓ  and
PAULO OLIVA
MARTÍN ESCARDÓ
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K. Email: m.escardo@cs.bham.ac.uk
PAULO OLIVA
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, U.K. Email: paulo.oliva@eecs.qmul.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bar recursion arises in constructive mathematics, logic, proof theory and higher-type computability theory. We explain bar recursion in terms of sequential games, and show how it can be naturally understood as a generalisation of the principle of backward induction that arises in game theory. In summary, bar recursion calculates optimal plays and optimal strategies, which, for particular games of interest, amount to equilibria. We consider finite games and continuous countably infinite games, and relate the two. The above development is followed by a conceptual explanation of how the finite version of the main form of bar recursion considered here arises from a strong monad of selections functions that can be defined in any cartesian closed category. Finite bar recursion turns out to be a well-known morphism available in any strong monad, specialised to the selection monad.

Type
Paper
Information
Mathematical Structures in Computer Science , Volume 20 , Special Issue 2: Domains , April 2010 , pp. 127 - 168
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramsky, S. and Jung, A. (1994) Domain theory. In: Abramsky, S., Gabbay, D. and Maibaum, T. (eds.) Handbook of Logic in Computer Science 3, Oxford science publications 1–168.Google Scholar
Avigad, J. and Feferman, S. (1998) Gödel's functional (“Dialectica”) interpretation. In: Buss, S. R. (ed.) Handbook of proof theory, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 137, North-Holland337–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battenfeld, I., Schröder, M. and Simpson, A. (2006) Compactly generated domain theory. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16 (2)141–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battenfeld, I., Schröder, M. and Simpson, A. (2007) A convenient category of domains. In: Computation, meaning, and logic: articles dedicated to Gordon Plotkin. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 172 69–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, A. (2002) A relationship between equilogical spaces and type two effectivity. MLQ Math. Log. Q. 48 (suppl. 1)1–15.Google Scholar
Bekič, H. (1984) Programming languages and their definition – H. Bekič (1936–1982) Selected Papers edited by C. B. Jones. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 177.Google Scholar
Berardi, S., Bezem, M. and Coquand, T. (1998) On the computational content of the axiom of choice. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 63 (2)600–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, U. and Oliva, P. (2005) Modified bar recursion and classical dependent choice. In: Baaz, M., Friedman, S. D. and Kraijcek, J. (eds.) Logic Colloquium '01. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Logic 20 89–107.Google Scholar
Berger, U. and Oliva, P. (2006) Modified bar recursion. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16 (2)163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bezem, M. (1985) Strongly majorizable functionals of finite type: a model for bar recursion containing discontinuous functionals. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 50 652–660.Google Scholar
Bove, A. and Dybjer, P. (2008) Dependent types at work. Lecture notes from the LerNET Summer School, Piriapolis, available at the authors' web pages.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escardó, M. (2007) Infinite sets that admit fast exhaustive search. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic In Computer Science, IEEE Computer Society 443–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Escardó, M. (2008) Exhaustible sets in higher-type computation. Logical Methods in Computer Science 4 (3:3)1–37.Google Scholar
Escardó, M., Lawson, J. and Simpson, A. (2004) Comparing Cartesian closed categories of (core) compactly generated spaces. Topology Appl. 143 (1–3)105–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutton, G. (2007) Programming in Haskell, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnstone, P. (2002) Sketches of an Elephant: a Topos Theory Compendium, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kock, A. (1970a) Monads on symmetric monoidal closed categories. Arch. Math. (Basel) 21 1–10.Google Scholar
Kock, A. (1970b) On double dualization monads. Math. Scand. 27 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kock, A. (1972) Strong functors and monoidal monads. Arch. Math. (Basel) 23 113–120.Google Scholar
Lambek, J. and Scott, P. (1986) Introduction to Higher Order Categorical Logic, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mac Lane, S. (1971) Categories for the Working Mathematician, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Moggi, E. (1990) An abstract view of programming languages. Technical Report ECS-LFCS-90-113, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Moggi, E. (1991) Notions of computation and monads. Information and Computation 93 (1)55–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisan, N. et al. (2007) Algorithmic Game Theory, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Normann, D. (1980) Recursion on the countable functionals. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Mathematics 811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Normann, D. (1999) The continuous functionals. In: Griffor, E. R. (ed.) Handbook of Computability Theory, Chapter 8, North-Holland251–275.Google Scholar
Oliva, P. (2006) Understanding and using Spector's bar recursive interpretation of classical analysis. In: Beckmann, A., Berger, U., Löwe, B. and Tucker, J. V. (eds.) Logical approaches to computational barriers. Proceedings second conference on computability in Europe, CiE 2006, Swansea. Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3988 423–434.Google Scholar
Schröder, M. (2002) Extended admissibility. Theoretical Computer Science 284 (2)519–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smyth, M. (1977) Effectively given domains. Theoretical Computer Science 5 (1)256–274.Google Scholar
Spector, C. (1962) Provably recursive functionals of analysis: a consistency proof of analysis by an extension of principles in current intuitionistic mathematics. In: Dekker, F. D. E. (ed.) Recursive Function Theory: Proc. Symposia in Pure Mathematics 5, American Mathematical Society 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valiente, G. (2002) Algorithms on Trees and Graphs, Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar