- Voir aussi: Hydre de Kirby-Paris
Le jeu de l'hydre de Buchholz est un jeu à un joueur joué sur des arbres étiquetés avec un nombre fini quelconque ou ω.[1][2][3]
Règles[]
The game is played on a finite labelled tree T where the root is marked with a special label (call it +), and every child of root has label 0, and every other node is labeled by any ordinal ≤ ω. This tree is called a hydra.
At each step, we choose a leaf node a to chop off. On the other hand, hydra chooses a nonnegative integer n in some way (for example, it is determined as the number of current step, starting from 1). The hydra alters by the following rules:
- If a has label 0, we proceed as in Kirby-Paris' game. Call the node's parent b, and its grandparent c (if it exists). First we delete a. If c exists (i.e. b is not the root), we make n copies of b and all its children and attach them to c.
- If a has label u + 1, we go down the tree looking for a node b with label v ≤ u (which is guaranteed to exist, as every child of the root node has label 0). Consider the subtree rooted at b — call it S. Create a copy of S, call it S'. Within S', we relabel b with u and relabel a with 0. Back in the original tree, replace a with S'.
- If a has label ω, we simply relabel it with n + 1.
If a is the hydra's rightmost leaf, we notate the transformed tree as T(n).
BH(n) function[]
Buchholz proved following Theorems (in a sufficiently strong meta theory which proves the consistency of \(\Pi_1^1-\textrm{CA}+\textrm{BI}\) so that the unprovability in \(\Pi_1^1-\textrm{CA}+\textrm{BI}\) works):[1]
- Theorem I: By always chopping off the rightmost head, Hercules is able to kill every hydra in a finite number of steps.
- Theorem II: For every fixed hydra A, Theorem I is provable in \(\Pi_1^1-\textrm{CA}+\textrm{BI}\).
- Theorem III: Suppose we make a tree with just one branch with \(x\) nodes, labeled \(+,0,\omega,\omega,...,\omega\). Call such a tree \(R^x\). Then it cannot be proven in \(\Pi_1^1-\textrm{CA}+\textrm{BI}\) that for all \(x\), there exists \(k\) such that \(R^x(1)(2)(3)...(k)\) is root tree. (The latter expression means taking the tree \(R^x\), then transforming it with \(n = 1\), then \(n = 2\), then \(n = 3\), etc. up to \(n = k\).)
Define \(\text{BH}(x)\) as the smallest \(k\) such that \(R^x(1)(2)(3)...(k)\) as defined above is root tree. By Theorem I this function is total on \(\mathbb{N}\) in the meta theory, but by Theorem III the meta theory proves that (the formalisation of) its totality cannot be proven in \(\Pi_1^1-\textrm{CA}+\textrm{BI}\).
Analysis[]
It is possible to make one-to-one correspondence between some hydras and ordinals.
To convert a tree or subtree to an ordinal:
- Inductively convert all the immediate children of the node to ordinals.
- Add up those child ordinals. If there were no children, this will be 0.
- If the label of the node is not +, apply \(\psi_\alpha\), where \(\alpha\) is the label of the node, and \(\psi\) is fonction de Buchholz.
The resulting ordinal expression is only useful if it is in normal form.
Some examples are:
Hydra | Ordinal |
---|---|
(+) | 0 |
(+(0)) | ψ0(0) = 1 |
(+(0)(0)) | ψ0(0) + ψ0(0) = 2 |
(+(0(0))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_0(0)) = \omega\) |
(+(0(0))(0)) | \(\psi_0(\psi_0(0)) + \psi_0(0) = \omega + 1\) |
(+(0(0))(0(0))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_0(0)) + \psi_0(\psi_0(0)) = \omega 2\) |
(+(0(0)(0))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_0(0) + \psi_0(0)) = \omega^2\) |
(+(0(0(0)))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_0(\psi_0(0))) = \omega^\omega\) |
(+(0(1))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_1(0)) = \varepsilon_0\) |
(+(0(1)(1))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_1(0) + \psi_1(0)) = \varepsilon_1\) |
(+(0(1(0)))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_1(\psi_0(0))) = \varepsilon_\omega\) |
(+(0(1(1)))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_1(\psi_1(0))) = \zeta_0\) |
(+(0(1(1(1))))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_1(\psi_1(\psi_1(0)))) = \Gamma_0\) |
(+(0(1(1(1(0)))))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_1(\psi_1(\psi_1(\psi_0(0))))) = \)SVO |
(+(0(1(1(1(1)))))) | \(\psi_0(\psi_1(\psi_1(\psi_1(\psi_1(0))))) = \)LVO |
(+(0(2))) | ψ0(ψ2(0)) = BHO |
(+(0(\(ω\)))) | ψ0(ψω(0)) |
Références[]
- ↑ 1,0 et 1,1 W. Buchholz, An independence result for (Π11 - CA) + BI, Ann. Pure Appl. Logic 33 (1987) 131-155.
- ↑ M. Hamano, M. Okada,A relationship among Gentzen's Proof-Reduction, Kirby-Paris' Hydra Game and Buchholz's Hydra Game, Math. Logic Quart. 43 (1997) 103-120. doi:10.1002/malq.19970430113
- ↑ M. Hamano, M. Okada, A direct independence proof of Buchholz's Hydra Game on finite labeled trees, Arch. Math. Logic 37 (1998) 67-89. doi:10.1007/s001530050084