The Determinacy of Context-Free Games

We prove that the determinacy of Gale-Stewart games whose winning sets are accepted by real-time 1-counter B\"uchi automata is equivalent to the determinacy of (effective) analytic Gale-Stewart games which is known to be a large cardinal assumption. We show also that the determinacy of Wadge games between two players in charge of omega-languages accepted by 1-counter B\"uchi automata is equivalent to the (effective) analytic Wadge determinacy. Using some results of set theory we prove that one can effectively construct a 1-counter B\"uchi automaton A and a B\"uchi automaton B such that: (1) There exists a model of ZFC in which Player 2 has a winning strategy in the Wadge game W(L(A), L(B)); (2) There exists a model of ZFC in which the Wadge game W(L(A), L(B)) is not determined. Moreover these are the only two possibilities, i.e. there are no models of ZFC in which Player 1 has a winning strategy in the Wadge game W(L(A), L(B)).Comment: To appear in the Proceedings of the 29 th International Symposium on Theoretical Aspects of Computer Science, STACS 201

What are Strategies in Delay Games? Borel Determinacy for Games with Lookahead

We investigate determinacy of delay games with Borel winning conditions, infinite-duration two-player games in which one player may delay her moves to obtain a lookahead on her opponent's moves. First, we prove determinacy of such games with respect to a fixed evolution of the lookahead. However, strategies in such games may depend on information about the evolution. Thus, we introduce different notions of universal strategies for both players, which are evolution-independent, and determine the exact amount of information a universal strategy needs about the history of a play and the evolution of the lookahead to be winning. In particular, we show that delay games with Borel winning conditions are determined with respect to universal strategies. Finally, we consider decidability problems, e.g., "Does a player have a universal winning strategy for delay games with a given winning condition?", for omega-regular and omega-context-free winning conditions

Uniformity, Universality, and Computability Theory

We prove a number of results motivated by global questions of uniformity in computability theory, and universality of countable Borel equivalence relations. Our main technical tool is a game for constructing functions on free products of countable groups. We begin by investigating the notion of uniform universality, first proposed by Montalb\'an, Reimann and Slaman. This notion is a strengthened form of a countable Borel equivalence relation being universal, which we conjecture is equivalent to the usual notion. With this additional uniformity hypothesis, we can answer many questions concerning how countable groups, probability measures, the subset relation, and increasing unions interact with universality. For many natural classes of countable Borel equivalence relations, we can also classify exactly which are uniformly universal. We also show the existence of refinements of Martin's ultrafilter on Turing invariant Borel sets to the invariant Borel sets of equivalence relations that are much finer than Turing equivalence. For example, we construct such an ultrafilter for the orbit equivalence relation of the shift action of the free group on countably many generators. These ultrafilters imply a number of structural properties for these equivalence relations.Comment: 61 Page

Wadge Degrees of ω\omega-Languages of Petri Nets

We prove that $\omega$-languages of (non-deterministic) Petri nets and $\omega$-languages of (non-deterministic) Turing machines have the same topological complexity: the Borel and Wadge hierarchies of the class of $\omega$-languages of (non-deterministic) Petri nets are equal to the Borel and Wadge hierarchies of the class of $\omega$-languages of (non-deterministic) Turing machines which also form the class of effective analytic sets. In particular, for each non-null recursive ordinal $\alpha < \omega\_1^{{\rm CK}}$ there exist some ${\bf \Sigma}^0\_\alpha$-complete and some ${\bf \Pi}^0\_\alpha$-complete $\omega$-languages of Petri nets, and the supremum of the set of Borel ranks of $\omega$-languages of Petri nets is the ordinal $\gamma\_2^1$, which is strictly greater than the first non-recursive ordinal $\omega\_1^{{\rm CK}}$. We also prove that there are some ${\bf \Sigma}\_1^1$-complete, hence non-Borel, $\omega$-languages of Petri nets, and that it is consistent with ZFC that there exist some $\omega$-languages of Petri nets which are neither Borel nor ${\bf \Sigma}\_1^1$-complete. This answers the question of the topological complexity of $\omega$-languages of (non-deterministic) Petri nets which was left open in [DFR14,FS14].Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:0712.1359, arXiv:0804.326

How unprovable is Rabin's decidability theorem?

We study the strength of set-theoretic axioms needed to prove Rabin's theorem on the decidability of the MSO theory of the infinite binary tree. We first show that the complementation theorem for tree automata, which forms the technical core of typical proofs of Rabin's theorem, is equivalent over the moderately strong second-order arithmetic theory $\mathsf{ACA}_0$ to a determinacy principle implied by the positional determinacy of all parity games and implying the determinacy of all Gale-Stewart games given by boolean combinations of ${\bf \Sigma^0_2}$ sets. It follows that complementation for tree automata is provable from $\Pi^1_3$- but not $\Delta^1_3$-comprehension. We then use results due to MedSalem-Tanaka, M\"ollerfeld and Heinatsch-M\"ollerfeld to prove that over $\Pi^1_2$-comprehension, the complementation theorem for tree automata, decidability of the MSO theory of the infinite binary tree, positional determinacy of parity games and determinacy of $\mathrm{Bool}({\bf \Sigma^0_2})$ Gale-Stewart games are all equivalent. Moreover, these statements are equivalent to the $\Pi^1_3$-reflection principle for $\Pi^1_2$-comprehension. It follows in particular that Rabin's decidability theorem is not provable in $\Delta^1_3$-comprehension.Comment: 21 page