Paper detail

Counting Branches in Trees Using Games

We study finite automata running over infinite binary trees. A run of such an automaton is usually said to be accepting if all its branches are accepting. In this article, we relax the notion of accepting run by allowing a certain quantity of rejecting branches. More precisely we study the following criteria for a run to be accepting: - it contains at most finitely (resp countably) many rejecting branches; - it contains infinitely (resp uncountably) many accepting branches; - the set of accepting branches is topologically "big". In all situations we provide a simple acceptance game that later permits to prove that the languages accepted by automata with cardinality constraints are always $ω$-regular. In the case (ii) where one counts accepting branches it leads to new proofs (without appealing to logic) of an old result of Beauquier and Niwinski.

preprint2015arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.