Started informal intro
This commit is contained in:
parent
9266131494
commit
a5abbd2680
1 changed files with 64 additions and 0 deletions
64
report.tex
64
report.tex
|
@ -48,6 +48,70 @@ Opponent plays $B$, thus reaching the configuration $A \cdot B$'').
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Informal approach}
|
\subsection{Informal approach}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The traditional approach to concurrent games is to represent them as
|
||||||
|
\emph{tree-like games}. If the considered game consists in three moves, namely
|
||||||
|
$A$, $B$ and $C$, where $A$ can be played by Opponent and the others by Player
|
||||||
|
\emph{after} Opponent has played $A$, that means that the states of the game
|
||||||
|
will be $\epsilon$, $A$, $A \cdot B$ and $A \cdot C$, which corresponds to the
|
||||||
|
game tree
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\[
|
||||||
|
\begin{tikzpicture}
|
||||||
|
\node (1) [ellipse] {A} ;
|
||||||
|
\node (2) [below left of=1, ellipse] {B};
|
||||||
|
\node (3) [below right of=1, ellipse] {C};
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\path [->]
|
||||||
|
(1) edge (2)
|
||||||
|
edge (3);
|
||||||
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
||||||
|
\]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This can of course be used to describe much larger games, and is often useful
|
||||||
|
to reason concurrently, since the causal histories appear clearly: the possible
|
||||||
|
states of the game can be read easily by concatenating the events that are on a
|
||||||
|
same branch.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
But it also has the major drawback of growing exponentially in size: let us
|
||||||
|
consider a game in which Opponent must play $A$ and $B$ in no particular order
|
||||||
|
before Player can play $C$. The corresponding tree-like game would be
|
||||||
|
\[
|
||||||
|
\begin{tikzpicture}
|
||||||
|
\node (11) {$A_1$};
|
||||||
|
\node (21) [below of=11] {$B_1$};
|
||||||
|
\node (31) [below of=21] {$C_1$};
|
||||||
|
\node (22) [right of=11] {$B_2$};
|
||||||
|
\node (12) [below of=22] {$A_2$};
|
||||||
|
\node (32) [below of=12] {$C_2$};
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
\path [->]
|
||||||
|
(11) edge (21)
|
||||||
|
(21) edge (31)
|
||||||
|
(22) edge (12)
|
||||||
|
(12) edge (32);
|
||||||
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
||||||
|
\]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This problem motivated the (still marginal) introduction of \emph{event
|
||||||
|
structures} as a formalism to describe such games. Informally, an event
|
||||||
|
structure is a partial order $\leq$ on \emph{events} (here, the game's moves),
|
||||||
|
alongside with a \emph{consistency} relation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The relation $e_1 \leq e_2$ means that $e_1$ must have been played before $e_2$
|
||||||
|
can be played, while the consistency relation states which events can occur
|
||||||
|
together in a same game. For instance, the previous game would have all its
|
||||||
|
events consistent with one another and its Hasse diagram would look like
|
||||||
|
\[
|
||||||
|
\begin{tikzpicture}
|
||||||
|
\node (1) {A};
|
||||||
|
\node (2) [right of=1] {B};
|
||||||
|
\node (3) [below left of=1, below right of=2] {C};
|
||||||
|
\path[->]
|
||||||
|
(1) edge (3)
|
||||||
|
(2) edge (3);
|
||||||
|
\end{tikzpicture}
|
||||||
|
\]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\subsection{Event structures}
|
\subsection{Event structures}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
\begin{definition}[event structure]
|
\begin{definition}[event structure]
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue