Finite promise games and greedy clique sequences

The finite promise games are a collection of mathematical games developed by American mathematician Harvey Friedman in 2009 which are used to develop a family of fast-growing functions , and . The greedy clique sequence is a graph theory concept, also developed by Friedman in 2010, which are used to develop fast-growing functions , and .

represents the theory of ZFC plus, for each , "there is a strongly -Mahlo cardinal", and represents the theory of ZFC plus "for each , there is a strongly -Mahlo cardinal". represents the theory of ZFC plus, for each , "there is a -stationary Ramsey cardinal", and represents the theory of ZFC plus "for each , there is a strongly -stationary Ramsey cardinal". represents the theory of ZFC plus, for each , "there is a -huge cardinal", and represents the theory of ZFC plus "for each , there is a strongly -huge cardinal".

Finite promise games edit

Each of the games is finite, predetermined in length, and has two players (Alice and Bob). At each turn, Alice chooses an integer or a number of integers (an offering) and the Bob has to make one of two kinds of promises restricting his future possible moves. In all games, Bob wins if and only if Bob has kept all of his promises.

Finite piecewise linear copy/invert games edit

Here,   is the set of integers, and   is the set of non-negative integers. Here, all letters represent integers. We say that a map   is piecewise linear if   can be defined by various affine functions with integer coefficients on each of finitely many pieces, where each piece is defined by a finite set of linear inequalities with integer coefficients. For some piecewise linear map  , a  -inversion of   is some   such that  . We then define the game   for nonzero  .

  has   rounds, and alternates between Alice and Bob. At every stage of the game, Alice is required to play  , called her offering, which is either of the form   or  , where   and   are integers previously played by Bob. Bob is then required to either:

  • Accept  , thereby playing   and promising that there will be no  -inversion of   among the integers ever played by Bob. This promise applies to all past, present and future plays in the game.
  • Reject  , thereby play a  -inversion of   and promising that   is never played by Bob.

In RCA0, it can be proven that Bob always has a winning strategy for any given game. The game   is a modified version where Bob is forced to accept all factorial offers by Alice  . Bob always has a winning strategy for   for sufficiently large  , although this cannot be proven in any given consistent fragment of  , and only  . The function   is the smallest   such that Bob can win   for any   such that   and   are greater than or equal to   and all the following values are less than  :

  •  
  •   (the domain of   is  )
  • the number of pieces of  
  • the absolute values of the coefficients of the inequalities in  
  • the absolute values of the coefficients of the affine functions in  

Finite polynomial copy/invert games edit

Let   be a polynomial with integer coefficients. A special  -inversion at   in   consists of   such that  . We now define the game   for nonzero  , where   are polynomials with integer coefficients.   consists of   alternating plays by Alice and Bob. At every stage of the game, Alice is required to play   of the form  ,   or  , where   is a  -tuple of integers previously played by Bob. Bob is then required to either:

  • Accept  , thereby playing   and promising that there will be no special  - or  -inversion of   among the integers ever played by Bob. This promise applies to all past, present and future plays in the game.
  • Reject  , thereby playing a special  - or  -inversion of   and promising that   is never played by Bob.

Let   be polynomials with integer coefficients. In RCA0, it can be proven that Bob always has a winning strategy for any given game. If   are sufficiently large then Bob wins  , which is   where Bob is forced to accept all double factorials   offered by Alice. However, once again, this cannot be proven in any given consistent fragment of  , and only  . The function   is the smallest   such that Bob can win   for any   such that   and   are greater than or equal to   and all the following values are less than  :

  •  
  •   (the domain of the polynomials is  )
  • the degrees of   and  
  • the absolute values of the coefficients of   and  

Finite linear copy/invert games edit

We say that   are additively equivalent if and only if  . For nonzero integers   and  , we define the game   which consists of   alternating rounds between Alice and Bob. At every stage of the game, Alice is required to play an integer   of the form   or  , where   are integers previously played by Bob. Bob is then required to either:

  • Accept  , thereby playing   and promising that   cannot be written as  , where   is additively equivalent to some  , and   are integers played by Bob at various times.
  • Reject  , thereby playing  , where   and   is additively equivalent to some  , and promises that   is never played by Bob.

Let  . In RCA0, it can be proven that Bob always has a winning strategy for any given game. Let  . If   is sufficiently large, then Bob wins  , where Bob accepts all factorials   offered by Alice. However, once again, this cannot be proven in any given consistent fragment of  , and only  . The function   is the smallest   such that Bob can win   for any   such that   is greater than or equal to  ,   are positive and all the following values are less than  :

  •  
  •  
  • the number of components of each vector in  

Functions edit

As shown by Friedman, the three functions  ,   and   are extremely fast-growing, eventually dominating any functions provably recursive in any consistent fragment of   (one of these is ZFC), but they are computable and provably total in  .

Greedy clique sequences edit

  denotes the set of all tuples of rational numbers. We use subscripts to denote indexes into tuples (starting at 1) and angle brackets to denote concatenation of tuples, e.g.  . Given  , we define the upper shift of  , denoted   to be the result of adding 1 to all its nonnegative components. Given  , we say that   and    are called order equivalent if and only if they have the same length and for all    iff  . A set   is order invariant iff for all order equivalent   and  ,  .

Let   be a graph with vertices in  . Let   be the set defined as follows: for every edge   in  , their concatenation   is in  . Then if   is order invariant, we say that   is order invariant. When   is order invariant,   has infinite edges. We are given  ,  , and a simple graph   (or a digraph in the case of upper shift greedy down clique sequences) with vertices in  . We define a sequence   as a nonempty tuple   where  . This is not a tuple but rather a tuple of tuples. When  ,   is said to be an upper shift greedy clique sequence in   if it satisfies the following:

  •   consists only of zeroes.
  • Let   be an integer such that  , or a positive integer if we allow infinite sequences.   and let  . Then,  ,   is not an edge of  , and  .
  •   is a clique in  , i.e.   contains as an edge every pair of vertices in  .

When  ,   is said to be an upper shift down greedy clique sequence in   if it satisfies the following:

  •   consists only of zeroes.
  • Let   be an integer such that  , or a positive integer if we allow infinite sequences.   and let  . Then,   or   and   is not an edge of  ; and  .
  •   is a down clique in  , i.e. for all   and  ,   is an edge of  .

When  ,   is said to be an extreme upper shift down greedy clique sequence in   if it satisfies the following:

  •   consists only of zeroes.
  • Let   be an integer such that  , or a positive integer if we allow infinite sequences.   and let  . Then,   or   and   is not an edge of  ; and  .
  • If  , then  .
  • If  , then  .
  • If   and  , then  
  •   is a down clique in  

The thread of   is a subsequence   defined inductively like so:

  •  
  •  

Given a thread  , we say that is open if  . Using this Harvey Friedman defined three very powerful functions:

  •   is the smallest   such that every simple, order invariant graph   has an upper shift greedy clique sequence in   of length at most   with an open thread.
  •   is the smallest   such that every order invariant digraph   has an upper shift greedy down clique sequence in   of length at most   with an open thread.
  •   is the smallest   such that every order invariant digraph   has an extreme upper shift greedy down clique sequence in   of length at most   with an open thread.

  and   eventually dominate all functions provably recursive in  , but are themselves provably recursive in  .   eventually dominates all functions provably recursive in  , but is itself provably total in  .

References edit

  • Friedman, Harvey (2009-09-02). "Finite Promise Games". New York University. Retrieved 2021-10-02.
  • Friedman, Harvey (2009-12-30). "Upper Shift Greedy Clique Sequences and Large Cardinals 1". New York University. Retrieved 2021-10-02.
  • Friedman, Harvey (2010-01-01). "Terrifically and Extremely Long Finite Sequences". New York University. Retrieved 2021-10-02.