Advertisement

Rewrite Games

  • Johannes Waldmann
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2378)

Abstract

For a terminating rewrite system R, and a ground term t 1, two players alternate in doing R-reductions t 1R t 2R t 3R... That is, player 1 choses the redex in t 1, t 3,..., and player 2 choses the redex in t 2, t 4,... The player who cannot move (because t n is a normal form), loses.

In this note, we propose some challenging problems related to certain rewrite games. In particular, we re-formulate an open problem from combinatorial game theory (do all finite octal games have an ultimately periodic Sprague-Grundy sequence?) as a question about rationality of some tree languages.

We propose to attack this question by methods from set constraint systems, and show some cases where this works directly.

Finally we present rewrite games from to combinatory logic, and their relation to algebraic tree languages.

Keywords

Normal Form Period Length Winning Strategy Ground Term Tree Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [AB95]
    Ingo Althöfer and Jörg Bültermann. Superlinear period lengths in some subtraction games. Theoretical Computer Science, 148:111–119, 1995.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [AN01]
    Michael H. Albert and Richard J. Nowakowski. The game of end-nim. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, 8(2), 2001.Google Scholar
  3. [AW92]
    Alexander Aiken and Edward L. Wimmers. Solving systems of set constraints. In Seventh Annual IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, pages 329–340, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. [BCG83]
    Elwyn R. Berlekamp, John H. Conway, and Richard K. Guy. Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays. Academic Press, 1983. (A K Peters, 2001).Google Scholar
  5. [BM88]
    L. Babai and S. Moran. Arthur-Merlin games: A randomized proof system, and a hierarchy of complexity classes. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 36(2):254–276, 1988.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [BN98]
    Franz Baader and Tobias Nipkow. Term Rewriting and All That. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [CDG+97]
    Hubert Comon, Max Dauchet, Rémi Gilleron, Denis Lugiez, Sophie Tison, and Marc Tommasi. Tree Automata Techniques and Applications. http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/tata/, 1997.
  8. [Con76]
    John H Conway. On Numbers and Games. Academic Press, 1976. (A K Peters, 2001).Google Scholar
  9. [CP94]
    Witold Charatonik and Leszek Pacholski. Set constraints with projections are in NEXPTIME. In IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 642–653, 1994.Google Scholar
  10. [EF99]
    Heinz-Dieter Ebbinghaus and Jörg Flum. Finite Model Theory. Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  11. [Fla97]
    Achim Flammenkamp. Lange Perioden in Subtraktions-Spielen. Hans-Jacobs Verlag, Lage, Germany, 1997. http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/achim/.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [Fra00]
    Aviezri Fraenkel. Combinatorial games: Selected bibliography with a succinct gourmet introduction. http://www.combinatorics.org/Surveys/index.html, 1994–2000. Electronic Journal of Combinatorics, Dynamic Surveys.
  13. [GH82]
    Y. Gurevich and L. Harrington. Trees, automata, and games. In Proc. Symp. Theory of Computing, pages 60–65. ACM Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  14. [GJ79]
    M. R. Garey and D. B. Johnson. Computers and Intractability. W. H. Freeman, 1979.Google Scholar
  15. [GMR89]
    S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, and C. Rackoff. The knowledge complexity of interactive proof systems. SIAM Journal on Computing, 18(1):186–208, February 1989.Google Scholar
  16. [GTT99]
    Remi Gilleron, Sophie Tison, and Marc Tommasi. Set constraints and automata. Information and Computation, 149(1):1–41, 1999.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. [Guy98a]
    Richard K. Guy. Impartial Games, pages 61–78. In[Now98], 1998.Google Scholar
  18. [Guy98b]
    Richard K. Guy. Unsolved problems in combinatorial games, pages 475–492. In [Now98], 1998.Google Scholar
  19. [Guy98c]
    Richard K. Guy. What is a game, pages 43–60. In [Now98], 1998.Google Scholar
  20. [Hol01]
    Markus Holzer. Assembling molecules in atomix is hard. Technical Report Technical Report TUM-I0101, Technische Universität München, Institut für Informatik, 2001.Google Scholar
  21. [ME00]
    Cristopher Moore and David Eppstein. One-dimensional peg solitaire, and duotaire. In MSRI Workshop on Combinatorial Games, page (to appear), 2000. http://www.santafe.edu/~moore/pubs/peg.html.
  22. [Now98]
    Richard J. Nowakowski, editor. Games of No Chance. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  23. [Rav97]
    B. Ravikumar. Peg-solitaire, string rewriting systems and finite automata. In International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation, Singapore, 1997. http://homepage.cs.uri.edu/faculty/ravikumar/index.html.
  24. [Spr35]
    Richard Sprague. Über mathematische kampfspiele. Tohoku Math. J., 41:438–444, 1935.Google Scholar
  25. [SU93]
    Walter Stromquist and Daniel Ullman. Sequential compounds of combinatorial games. Theoretical Computer Science, 119:311–321, 1993.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  26. [Vág98]
    S. Vágvölgyi. The ground tree transducer game. Fundamenta Informati-cae, (34):175–201, 1998.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Johannes Waldmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für InformatikUniversität LeipzigLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations