Solving Sequential Conditions by Finite-State Strategies

  • J. Richard Buchi
  • Lawrence H. Landweber


Our main purpose is to present an algorithm which decides whether or not a condition 𝕮(X, Y) stated in sequential calculus admits a finite automata solution, and produces one if it exists. This solves a problem stated in [4] and contains, as a very special case, the answer to Case 4 left open in [6]. In an equally appealing form the result can be restated in the terminology of [7], [10], [15]: Every ω-game definable in sequential calculus is determined. Moreover the player who has a winning strategy, in fact, has a winning finite-state strategy, that is one which can effectively be played in a strong sense. The main proof, that of the central Theorem 1, will be presented at the end. We begin with a discussion of its consequences.


Sequential Condition Finite Automaton Winning Strategy Sequential Calculus Recursive Operator 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J. R. Buchi, Decision methods in the theory of ordinals, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 71 (1965), 767–770.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. R. Buchi, C. E. Elgot and J. B. Wright, The nonexistence of certain algorithms of finite automata theory, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1958), 98.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. R. Buchi, Weak second-order arithmetic and finite automata, Z. Math. Logik Grundlagen Math. 6 (1960), 66–92.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. R. Buchi, On a decision method in restricted second order arithmetic, Proc. Internat. Congr. Logic, Method, and Philos. Sci. 1960, Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, Calif., 1962.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Church, Application of recursive arithmetic to the problem of circuit synthesis, Summaries of Talks Presented at the Summer Institute for Symbolic Logic, Cornell Univ. 1957, 2nd ed; Princeton, N. J., 1960, 3–50.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Church, Logic arithmetic and automata, Proc. Internat. Congr. Math. 1963, Almqvist and Wiksells, Uppsala, 1963.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Davis, “Infinite games of perfect information” in Advances in game theory, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J., 1964, 85–101.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. C. Elgot, Decision problems of finite automata design and related arithmetics, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 98 (1961), 21–51.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Friedman, Some results in Church’s restricted recursive arithmetic, J. Symbolic Logic 22 (1957), 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. Gale and F. M. Stewart, “Infinite games with perfect information” in Contributions to the theory of games, Vol. II, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J., 1953, 245–266.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. C. Kleene, Arithmetical predicates and function quantifiers, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 79 (1955), 312–340.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. C. Kleene, “Representation of events in nerve nets and finite automata” in Automata studies, Princeton Univ. Press. Princeton, N. J., 1956, 3–41.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. H. Landweber, Finite state games—A solvability algorithm for restricted second-order arithmetic, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1967), 129–130.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    R. McNaughton, Testing and generating infinite sequences by a finite automaton, Information and Control 9 (1966), 521–530.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. Mycielski, S. Swierczkowski and A. Zieba, On infinite positional games, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. Cl. III 4 (1956), 485–488.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Rabin and D. Scott, Finite automata and their decision problems, IBM J. Res. Develop. 3(1959), 114–125.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. Rabin, “Effective computability of winning strategies” in Contributions to the theory of games, Vol. III, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N. J., 1957, 147–157.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. A. Trachtenbrot, Synthesis of logic networks whose operators are described by means of single place predicate calculus, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 118 (1958), 646–649.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. A. Trachtenbrot, Finite automata and the logic of single place predicates, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 140 (1961), 320–323 = Soviet Math. Dokl. 2 (1961), 623–626.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. R. Buchi and L. G. Landweber, Definability in the monadic second-order theory of successor, J. Symbolic Logic 34 (1969).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Richard Buchi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Lawrence H. Landweber
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Purdue UniversityLafayetteUSA
  2. 2.University of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations