Games for Inclusion Logic and Fixed-Point Logic

  • Erich GrädelEmail author


One of the most intriguing results on logics of dependence and independence is the tight connection between inclusion logic and the least fixed-point logic LFP. Here we re-examine this connection from a game-theoretic point of view. We study the model-checking games for inclusion logic and for posGFP, the fragment of LFP that uses only (non-negated) greatest fixed points. We show that the evaluation problems for both logics can be represented by a special kind of trap condition in safety games. We then study interpretation arguments for games. In combination with our study of traps for inclusion logic and posGFP, game interpretations will give us a model-theoretic construction of translations between the two logics.


Winning Strategy Dependence Logic Game Graph Winning Condition Negation Normal Form 
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.


  1. 1.
    Apt, K., Grädel, E. (eds.): Lectures in Game Theory for Computer Scientists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blass, A., Gurevich, Y.: Henkin quantifiers and complete problems. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 32, 1–16 (1986)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dahlhaus, E.: Skolem normal forms concerning the least fixed point. In: Börger, E. (ed.) Computation Theory and Logic. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 270, pp. 101–106. Springer, Berlin (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Engström, F.: Generalized quantifiers in dependence logic. J. Logic Lang. Inf. 21, 299–324 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Galliani, P.: Inclusion and exclusion in team semantics — on some logics of imperfect information. Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 163, 68–84 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galliani, P., Hella, L.: Inclusion logic and fixed-point logic. In: Computer Science Logic 2013. Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), vol. 23, pp. 281–295 (2013)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grädel, E.: Model-checking games for logics of incomplete information. Theor. Comput. Sci. 493, 2–14 (2013)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grädel, E., Väänänen, J.: Dependence and independence. Stud. Logica 101 (2), 399–410 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grädel, E., et al.: Finite Model Theory and Its Applications. Springer, Berlin (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodges, W.: A Shorter Model Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hodges, W.: Logics of imperfect information: why sets of assignments? In: van Benthem, J., Löwe, B., Gabbay, D. (eds.) Interactive Logic. Texts in Logic and Games, vol. 1, pp. 117–134. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kontinen, J., Väänänen, J.: On definability in dependence logic. J. Log. Lang. Inf. 18, 317–241 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 14.
    Väänänen, J.: Dependence Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Math. Foundations of Computer ScienceRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations