1: \NeedsTeXFormat{LaTeX2e}[1994/06/01]

2: \documentclass[11pt,a4paper]{article} 

3: 

4: \usepackage{latexsym}

5: \usepackage{amssymb} 

6: \usepackage{amsmath} 

7: \usepackage{amsthm}

8: \usepackage{eucal} 

9: %\usepackage{maplesty}

10: \usepackage{bezier}

11: \usepackage{graphics}

12: \usepackage[matrix,curve,arrow,tips,frame]{xy}

13: \usepackage{color}

14: 

15: \theoremstyle{plain} \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

16: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

17: \newtheorem{sublemma}[theorem]{Sublemma}

18: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

19: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary} \newtheorem{cl}{Claim}

20: \newtheorem{conj}{Conjecture} \newtheorem*{observation}{Observation}

21: 

22: \theoremstyle{definition} \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}

23: \newtheorem{algorithm}{Algorithm}

24: \renewcommand{\thealgorithm}{\Alph{algorithm}}

25: 

26: \theoremstyle{remark} \newtheorem*{claim}{Claim}

27: \newtheorem*{example}{Example} 

28: \newtheorem*{acknowledgement}{Acknowledgement}

29: 

30: 

31: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

32: %

33: % macros for structures, models, algebras...

34: %

35: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

36: 

37: 

38: \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}} 

39: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}

40: 

41: %\newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}} 

42: %\DeclareMathOperator{\pr}{\mathrm{pr}}

43: 

44: \newcommand{\yes}{\mathbf{yes}} 

45: \newcommand{\no}{\mathbf{no}}

46: 

47: \newcommand{\nil}{\mathbf{nil}} 

48: \newcommand{\answ}{\mathbf{answ}}

49: \DeclareMathOperator{\PP}{\mathcal{P}}

50: \DeclareMathOperator{\LL}{\mathcal{L}}

51: \DeclareMathOperator{\intersect}{\cap} 

52: 

53: \newcommand{\NP}{\mathcal{NP}}

54: \newcommand{\coNP}{\mathrm{co}\mathcal{NP}} 

55: \newcommand{\EXPTIME}{\mathcal{EXPTIME}}

56: \newcommand{\PTIME}{\mathcal{PTIME}}

57: \newcommand{\PSPACE}{\mathcal{PSPACE}}

58: 

59: 

60: \newcommand{\X}{\mathcal{X}}

61: \newcommand{\Y}{\mathcal{Y}}

62: 

63: 

64: \newcommand{\Lor}{\bigvee}

65: \newcommand{\Land}{\bigwedge} 

66: 

67: \DeclareMathOperator{\U}{\mathsf{Until}}

68: \DeclareMathOperator{\Since}{\mathsf{Since}}

69: \DeclareMathOperator{\NEXT}{\bigcirc}

70: \DeclareMathOperator{\FDIA}{\Diamond} 

71: \DeclareMathOperator{\FBOX}{\Box}

72: \DeclareMathOperator{\PREV}{\unitlength 1.00pt\begin{picture}(8.00,10.00)\put(4.00,3.00){\circle*{6}}\end{picture}}

73: \DeclareMathOperator{\PDIA}{\blacklozenge}

74: \DeclareMathOperator{\PBOX}{\blacksquare}

75: 

76: \newcommand{\TL}{\mathrm{TL}}

77: \newcommand{\M}{\mathcal{M}} 

78: 

79: \newcommand{\conn}[9]{

80: \begin{array}{|c|ccc|} \hline

81: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{x #1 y}\\ \hline\hline x\diagdown y &0 &1 &\bot\\\hline

82:  0 &#2 &#3 &#4\\ 1 &#5 &#6 &#7\\ \bot &#8 &#9

83: &\bot\\ \hline

84: \end{array}}

85: 

86: \newcommand{\varconn}[9]{

87: \begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline

88: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{#1(x,y)}\\ \hline\hline x\diagdown y &0 &1 &\bot\\

89: \hline 0 &#2 &#3 &#4\\ \hline 1 &#5 &#6 &#7\\ \hline \bot &#8 &#9

90: &\bot\\ \hline

91: \end{array}}

92: 

93: \newcommand{\SAC}{\mathrm{SAC}} 

94: \newcommand{\GNW}{\mathrm{GNW}}

95: \newcommand{\PS}{\mathrm{PS}} 

96: \newcommand{\CL}{\mathrm{CL}} 

97: \newcommand{\Sch}{\mathrm{Sch}}

98: \newcommand{\Cal}{\mathrm{Cal}}

99: 

100: \newcommand{\lra}{\leftrightarrow}

101: 

102: \newcommand{\true}{1} 

103: \newcommand{\false}{0}

104: \renewcommand{\Cup}{\bigcup} 

105: \renewcommand{\Cap}{\bigcap}

106: \DeclareMathOperator{\falka}{\leftrightsquigarrow}

107: 

108: \newcommand{\tm}{${}^{\mathrm{TM}}$} 

109: \newcommand{\A}{\mathfrak{A}}

110: \newcommand{\B}{\mathfrak{B}}

111: \newcommand{\E}{\mathcal{E}}

112: 

113: \newcommand{\cea}{{\em cea\/}}

114: \newcommand{\fM}{\mathfrak{M}}

115: \newcommand{\RR}{{\mathsf{R}}}

116: \newcommand{\RS}{{\mathsf{RS}}}

117: \renewcommand{\S}{{\mathsf{S}}}

118: \newcommand{\R}{{\mathsf{R}}}%{{\scalebox{.55}[.77]{$\mathsf{R}$}}}

119: \newcommand{\C}{\complement}

120: \newcommand{\trzy}{{\text{\boldmath$\mathsf{3}$}}}

121: \newcommand{\dwa}{{\text{\boldmath$\mathsf{2}$}}}

122: \DeclareMathOperator{\hatpr}{{\underline{Prob}}}

123: \newcommand{\hatOmega}{\underline{\Omega}}

124: \newcommand{\PC}{\mathcal{PC}}

125: \newcommand{\CC}{\mathcal{C}}

126: \renewcommand{\P}{\mathcal{P}}

127: \newcommand{\lland}{\curlywedge}

128: \newcommand{\llor}{\curlyvee}

129: \newcommand{\LLor}{\bigvee}%{\scalebox{1.5}{$\llor$}}

130: \DeclareMathOperator{\llto}{\rightarrowtail}

131: \newcommand{\first}{\mathrm{first}}

132: \newcommand{\last}{\mathrm{last}}

133: \newcommand{\ce}[1]{[\![#1]\!]}

134: \newcommand{\ps}[1]{\langle\!\langle#1\rangle\!\rangle_\PS}

135: \newcommand{\gnw}[1]{\langle\!\langle#1\rangle\!\rangle_\GNW}

136: \newcommand{\sac}[1]{\langle\!\langle#1\rangle\!\rangle_\SAC}

137: \renewcommand{\cl}[1]{\langle\!\langle#1\rangle\!\rangle_\CL}

138: \newcommand{\ttt}[1]{\tau(#1)}

139: \newcommand{\ttl}[1]{\sigma(#1)}

140: \newcommand{\ttlr}[1]{\sigma^{\R}(#1)}

141: \newcommand{\ttr}[1]{\tau^{\RR}(#1)}

142: \newcommand{\ttlrs}[1]{\sigma^{\RS}(#1)}

143: \newcommand{\ttrs}[1]{\tau^{\RS}(#1)}

144: \newcommand{\TT}{{(\TL|\TL)}}

145: \newcommand{\pr}{\Pr\nolimits}

146: \newcommand{\defn}{\mathop{\uparrow}}

147: \newcommand{\TRUE}{\mathit{true}}

148: \newcommand{\FALSE}{\mathit{false}}

149: \newcommand{\atone}{\mathbf{@}_1}

150: \newcommand{\attwo}{\mathbf{@}_2}

151: \newcommand{\llnot}{\sim\!}

152: \parindent0pt

153: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

154: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

156: 

157: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

158: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

159: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

161: \title{The Temporal Calculus\\ of Conditional Objects and Conditional

162: Events}

163: 

164: \author{

165: Jerzy Tyszkiewicz$^{1,2}$\\

166: Arthur Ramer$^2$\\

167: Achim Hoffmann$^2$}

168: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

169: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

170: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

171: \CompileMatrices

172: \pagestyle{myheadings}

173: \markright{{\tt \jobname .tex}, version of \today}

174: \begin{document} 

175: \begin{titlepage}

176: \maketitle 

177: \begin{center}$^1$ Institute of Informatics,\\ University of

178: Warsaw,\\ Banacha 2,\\ 02-097 Warszawa,\\ Poland.\\ E-mail

179: {\tt jty@mimuw.edu.pl}.\\ Supported by the Polish Research Council KBN

180: grant 8 T11C 027 16.\\[5pt]  $^2$ School CSE,\\ UNSW,\\ 2052 Sydney,\\

181: Australia.\\ E-mail {\tt \{jty|ramer|achim\}@cse.unsw.edu.au}.\\ Supported by

182: the Australian Research Council ARC grant A 49800112 (1998--2000).

183: \end{center}

184: \thispagestyle{empty}

185: \end{titlepage}

186: \begin{titlepage}

187: \vspace{5cm}

188: \begin{abstract} 

189:     We consider the problem of defining conditional objects $(a|b),$

190: which would allow one to regard the conditional probability $\Pr(a|b)$

191: as a probability of a well-defined event rather than as a shorthand

192: for $\Pr(ab)/\Pr(b).$ The next issue is to define boolean combinations

193: of conditional objects, and possibly also the operator of further

194: conditioning.  These questions have been investigated at least since

195: the times of George Boole, leading to a number of formalisms proposed

196: for conditional objects, mostly of syntactical, proof-theoretic vein.

197: 

198:     We propose a unifying, semantical approach, in which conditional

199: events are (projections of) Markov chains, definable in the

200: three-valued extension $\TT$ of the past tense fragment of

201: propositional linear time logic ($\TL$), or, equivalently, by

202: three-valued counter-free Moore machines. Thus our conditional objects

203: are indeed stochastic processes, one of the central notions of modern

204: probability theory. 

205: 

206: Our model precisely fulfills early ideas of de Finetti \cite{d72},

207: and, moreover, as we show in a separate paper \cite{cea}, all the

208: previously proposed algebras of conditional events can be

209: isomorphically embedded in our model.

210: \end{abstract}

211: \end{titlepage}

212: 

213: \begin{titlepage}

214: \tableofcontents 

215: \end{titlepage}

216: 

217: \section{Preliminaries and statement of the problem}

218: 

219: \subsection{The problem of conditional objects}

220: 

221: Probabilistic reasoning \cite{p88} is the basis of Bayesian methods of

222: expert system inferences, of knowledge discovery in databases, and in

223: several other domains of computer, information, and decision

224: sciences.  The model of conditioning and conditional objects we discuss

225: serves equally to reason about probabilities over a finite domain $X$,

226: or probabilistic propositional logic with a finite set of atomic

227: formulae.

228: 

229: 

230: Computing of conditional probabilities of the form

231: $\Pr(X|Y_1,\dots,Y_n)$ and, by extension of conditional beliefs, is

232: well understood.  Attempts of defining first the {\em conditional

233: objects\/} of the basic form $X|Y$, and then defining $\Pr(X|Y)$ as

234: $\Pr((X|Y))$ were proposed, without much success, by some of the

235: founders of probability \cite{b57,d72}.  They were taken up

236: systematically only about 1980.  The development was slow, both

237: because of logical difficulties \cite{l76,cccp1,cccp2}, and even more

238: because the computational model is difficult to construct.  (While

239: $a|b$ appears to stand for a sentence `if $b$ then $a$', there is no

240: obvious calculation for $\Pr(a|(b|c))$, nor intuitive meaning for

241: $a|(b|c),$ $(a|b)\land(c|d),$ and the like.)

242: 

243: The idea of defining conditional objects was entertained by some

244: founders of modern probability \cite{b57,d72}, but generally abandoned

245: since introduction of the measure-theoretic model.  It was revived

246: mostly by philosophers in 1970's \cite{a86,v77} with a view towards

247: artificial intelligence reasoning.  Formal computational models came

248: in the late 1980's and early 1990's \cite{c87,gnw91,g94}. Only a few

249: of them have been used for few actual calculations of conditionals and

250: their probabilities whose values are open to questions \cite{c94,g94}.

251: 

252: In this paper we want to give a rigorous (and yet quite natural and

253: intuitive) probabilistic and semantical construction of conditionals,

254: based on ideas proposed by de Finetti over a quarter a century ago

255: \cite{d72}. It appears that this single formalism contains fragments

256: precisely corresponding to all the previously considered algebras of

257: conditional events \cite{cea}.  Seen as a whole, it can be therefore

258: considered as their common generalisation and perhaps {\em the\/}

259: calculus of conditionals. 

260: 

261: Our system consists of three layers: the logical part is a three

262: valued extension of the past tense fragment of propositional linear

263: time logic, the computation model are three-valued Moore machines (an

264: extension of deterministic finite automata), and the probabilistic

265: semantics is provided by three-valued stochastic processes, which

266: appear to be projections of Markov chains.

267: 

268: 

269: \subsection{The main idea}

270: 

271: \paragraph{The main idea.} The main idea of our approach can be seen

272: as an attempt to provide a precise mathematical implementation of the

273: following idea of de Finetti \cite[Sect.\ 5.12]{d72}:

274: 

275: \begin{quote}

276: \begin{sl}

277: ``In the asymptotic approach, the definition of conditional

278: probability appears quite naturally; it suffices to repeat the

279: definition of probability \textup{(}as the limiting

280: frequency\textup{)}, taking into consideration only the trials in

281: which the conditioning event \textup{(}hypothesis\textup{)} is

282: satisfied. Thus, $P(E|H)$ is simply the limit of the ratio between the

283: frequency of $EH$ and the frequency of $H.$ If the limiting frequency

284: of $H$ exists and is different from zero, the definition is

285: mathematically equivalent to the compound probability theorem

286: $P(E|H)=P(EH)/P(H).$ But even if the frequency of $H$ does not tend to

287: a limit, or the limit is zero, $P(E|H)$ can nonetheless exist

288: \textup{(}trivial example: $P(H|H)$ is always equal to \/

289: $1$\textup{)}.''

290: \end{sl}

291: \end{quote}

292: 

293: We believe that our attempt is successful: our system will have all

294: the properties predicted by de Finetti, and, moreover, as we show in a

295: separate paper \cite{cea}, subsumes all the previously existing

296: formalisms developed to deal with conditionals, and, finally, appears

297: to be able to handle some well-known paradoxes of probability in an

298: intuitive and yet precise manner.

299: 

300: \paragraph{Three truth values.} 

301: 

302: To be able to take into account only the trials in which the

303: hypothesis is satisfied, one has to introduce a third logical

304: value. Informally, if one considers two players\footnote{This sounds

305: definitely better than gamblers ;-).}: one betting $(a|b)$ will hold,

306: and the other it will not, if in a random experiment (dice toss, coin

307: flip) $b$ doesn't hold, the game is drawn.  The previous works

308: considered it to be an evidence that the definition of conditionals

309: must be necessarily based on many valued logics, the typical choices

310: being three valued.

311: 

312: Note however, that assigning probability to a three-valued $c$ is

313: something like squeezing it to become two-valued. For one then assumes

314: it to be true $\Pr(c)$ of time and false $1-\Pr(c)$ of time, and the

315: time when $c$ has the third value, typically described as {\em

316: undefined}, is lost. So, unlike most of our predecessors, we attempt

317: to preserve the three-valuedness of conditionals as a principle, and

318: define their probability only on the top of that.

319: 

320: 

321: \paragraph{Bet repetitions.}

322: Now, we should allow the players to repeat their bets. Here, unlike

323: most of the previous works, if the players repeat the game, we allow

324: them to bet on properties of the {\em whole\/} sequence of outcomes,

325: not just the last one.

326: 

327: This is not uncommon in many random experiments, that the history of

328: the bets influences the present bet somehow.

329: 

330: We present three natural examples, which are natural and have a simple

331: description.  

332: 

333: The first possibility is that after each bet we we start over---after

334: the result of the experiment is settled, the (temporal) history is

335: started anew, the next experiment not taking the old results into

336: account.

337: 

338: The second is just the opposite---always the entire history, including

339: earlier experiments, is taken into account.

340: 

341: The third is that no repetition is allowed: after the first experiment

342: is settled, its outcome is deemed to persist forever, and future

343: trials are effectively null.  (Regardless of each subsequent element

344: drawn the result is always defined and remains the same.)

345: 

346: Roughly speaking, the first choice is adopted in bridge, the second in

347: blackjack and the third in Russian roulette.

348: 

349: 

350: This suggests that a conditional isn't merely an experiment with three

351: possible outcomes. It is indeed a {\em sequence} of experiments, and

352: the third logical value, often described as {\em unknown}, is often

353: {\em not y\underline{et} known}. It is clearly a temporal concept, and

354: thus we are going to consider conditionals as {\em temporal objects.}

355: This temporal aspect is clearly of {\em past tense\/} type --- the

356: result of a bet must depend on the history (including present) of the

357: sequence of outcomes, only.

358: 

359: It is worth noting that there are other approaches which consider

360: implicitly bet repetition in the modelling of conditionals. These

361: include \cite{v77,mcgee,g94,ramer}.

362: 

363: \paragraph{Summary.} 

364: What we undertake is thus the development of a calculus of conditional

365: objects identified with temporal rules, which, given a sequence of random

366: elements from the underlying domain, decide after each of the drawn

367: elements if the the conditional becomes defined, and if so, whether it

368: is true or false.

369: 

370: We stipulate that, for any reasonable calculus of conditionals, {\em

371: forming boolean combinations of conditionals, as well as iterated

372: conditionals, amounts to manipulating on these rules.}

373: 

374: This claim is indeed well motivated: if we fail to associate such rule

375: to a complex conditional object, we do not have any means to say, in a

376: real-life situations, who wins the bet on this conditional and when.

377: So to say, such a conditional would be nonprobabilistic, because one

378: couldn't bet on it!

379: 

380: \paragraph{Novelty of our approach.}  We would like to stress that

381: virtually none of the results we prove below is entirely new. Most of

382: them are simple extensions or reformulations of already known

383: theorems, as the reader can verify in Section \ref{related}. The

384: novelty of our approach lies almost entirely in the way we assemble

385: the results to create mathematically precise representation of an

386: otherwise quite clear and intuitive notion. And indeed, we feel very

387: reassured by the fact that we didn't have to invent any new

388: mathematics for our construction.  Similarly the proofs we give in

389: this paper are quite straightforward. This is exactly the emergence of

390: previously-unheard-of complicated algebraic structures (dubbed {\em

391: conditional event algebras\/} in \cite{kniga}), which prompted us to

392: have a closer look at conditional events and search for simpler and

393: more intuitive formalisations. Note that probabilists and logicians

394: have been doing quite well without conditional events for decades,

395: which strongly suggests they have had all the tools necessary to use

396: conditionals in an implicit way for a long time already. To the

397: contrary, in the emerging applied areas, and in particular in AI,

398: there is a strong need to have conditional events explicitly present,

399: and this is why we believe in the importance of our results.

400: 

401: 

402: \section{The tools}

403: \subsection{Pre-conditionals}

404: 

405: Let $\E=\{a,b,c,d,\dots\}$ be a finite set of basic events, and let

406: $\Sigma$ be the free Boolean algebra generated by $\E,$ and $\Omega$

407: the set of atoms of $\Sigma.$ Consequently, $\Sigma$ is isomorphic to

408: the powerset of $\Omega,$ and $\Omega$ itself is isomorphic to the

409: powerset of $\E.$ Any element of $\Sigma$ will be considered as an

410: event, and, in particular, $\E\subseteq\Sigma.$

411: 

412: The union, intersection and complementation in $\Sigma$ are denoted by $a\cup

413: b,\ a\cap b$ and $a^\C,$ respectively.  The least and greatest elements of

414: $\Sigma$ are denoted $\varnothing$ and $\Omega,$ respectively. However,

415: sometimes we use a more compact notation, replacing $\cap$ by juxtaposition.

416: When we turn to logic, it is customary to use yet another notation: $a\lor b,\

417: a\land b$ and $\lnot a,$ respectively. In this situation $\Omega$ appears as

418: $\TRUE$ and $\varnothing$ as $\FALSE,$ but $1$ and $0,$ respectively, are

419: incidentally used, as well. Generally we are quite anarchistic in our

420: notation, as long as it does not create ambiguities.

421: 

422: We introduce the set $\trzy =\{0,1,\bot\}$ of truth values,

423: interpreted as {\em true}, {\em false\/} and {\em undefined},

424: respectively.  The subset of $\trzy $ consisting of $0$ and $1$ will

425: be denoted $\dwa.$

426: 

427: 

428: It follows from the discussion above that we are going to look for

429: conditionals in the set $\PC=\trzy ^{\Omega^+}$ of three-valued

430: functions $c$ from the set $\Omega^+$ of finite nonempty sequences of

431: atomic events from $\Omega$ into $\trzy .$ We will call such functions

432: {\em pre-conditionals}, since to deserve the name of conditionals they

433: must obey some additional requirements.

434: 

435: Sometimes it is convenient to represent such objects in two other, slightly

436: different, yet equivalent forms: 

437: 

438: \begin{itemize}

439: \item The second representation are length-preserving mappings

440: $c_+:\Omega^+\to\trzy ^+$ such that $c_+(v)$ is a prefix of $c_+(vw).$

441: The set of all such mappings will be denoted $\PC_+.$

442: \item The third representation are mappings

443: $c_\infty:\Omega^\infty\to\trzy ^\infty$ such that if

444: $w,v\in\Omega^\infty$ have a common prefix of length $n,$ then

445: $c_\infty(w)$ and $c_\infty(v)$ have a common prefix of length $n,$

446: too.  The set of all such mappings will be denoted $\PC_\infty.$

447: \end{itemize}

448: 

449: On the set $\Omega^+\cup\Omega^\infty$ one has the natural partial

450: order relation of being a prefix. Suprema of sets in this partial

451: order are denoted by $\bigsqcup.$

452: 

453: In general, $c,\ c_+$ and $c_\infty$ denote always three

454: representations of the same pre-conditional, and the subscript (or its

455: lack) indicates what representation we take at the moment, and we

456: choose it according to what is most convenient. The three

457: representations $c,\ c_+$ and $c_\infty$ are related by the equalities

458: 

459: \begin{equation}\label{reprezentacje}

460: \begin{split}

461: c(\omega_1\dots \omega_n)&=\text{last-letter-of}(c_+(\omega_1\dots

462: \omega_n)),\\

463: c(\omega_1\dots \omega_n)&=\text{$n$th-letter-of}(c_\infty(\omega_1\dots

464: \omega_n\dots)),\\

465: c_+(\omega_1\dots \omega_n)&=c(\omega_1)c(\omega_1\omega_2)\dots

466: c(\omega_1\dots \omega_n),\\ 

467: c_+(\omega_1\dots \omega_n)&=\text{first-$n$-letters-of}

468: (c_\infty(\omega_1\dots\omega_n\dots)),\\ 

469: c_\infty(\omega_1\dots \omega_n\dots)&=c(\omega_1)c(\omega_1\omega_2)\dots

470: c(\omega_1\dots \omega_n)\dots,\\ 

471: c_\infty(\omega_1\dots \omega_n\dots)&=\bigsqcup\{c_+(\omega_1\dots

472: \omega_n)~/~n=1,2\dots\}.

473: \end{split}

474: \end{equation}

475: 

476: 

477: 

478: Even though we are on a rather preliminary level of our construction, we

479: can address the general question of defining connectives among

480: pre-conditionals already now. In our setting such a connective is indeed

481: a function from some power of the space of pre-conditionals into itself.

482: However, to fulfill the requirement that a connective should depend

483: solely on the outcomes of its arguments (this property is called {\em

484: extensionality\/} in the logic literature), and that it should refer to

485: the history, only, the following additional condition must be met.

486: 

487: For any connective $\alpha:\PC_+^n\to \PC_+$

488: and any $\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n,\varphi'_1,\dots,\varphi'_n\in

489: \PC_+,$ $v,w\in\Omega^+$ satisfying $\varphi_i(w)=\varphi'_i(v)$ for

490: $i=1,\dots,n$ holds

491: 

492: \[\alpha(\varphi_1,\dots,\varphi_n)(w)=

493: \alpha(\varphi'_1,\dots,\varphi'_n)(v).\]

494: 

495: Note that we permit strong dependence on the history: we do not

496: require the connective to depend just on the present values of its

497: arguments, we allow it to depend on their whole histories. However, if

498: a particular connective $\alpha$ meets the former, stronger

499: requirement, whose formal statement can be obtained from the above

500: condition by replacing $\PC_+$ by $\PC$ everywhere it occurs, we call

501: it a {\em present tense connective}.

502: 

503: Connectives which are not present tense will be called {\em past

504: tense}. Any $n$-ary present tense connective of pre-conditionals is

505: fully characterised by a mapping $\trzy ^n\to \trzy.$ Note that any

506: connective $\alpha,$ not necessarily present tense one, can be

507: completely specified by a mapping $\bigcup_{t>0}\underbrace{\trzy

508: ^t\times\dots\times\trzy ^t}_{\text{$n$ times}}\to \trzy .$

509: 

510: Just like their connectives, pre-conditionals can be present tense,

511: too. A pre-conditional $c:\Omega^+\to\trzy $ is called {\em present

512: tense\/} iff $c(v)=c(w)$ holds whenever

513: $\text{last-letter-of}(v)=\text{last-letter-of}(w).$ So indeed a

514: present tense pre-conditional is completely determined by a function

515: $\Omega\to\trzy .$

516: 

517: \subsection{The formalisms}

518: 

519: 

520: Our intention is to distinguish conditionals among pre-conditionals.

521: Therefore, in order to deal with them, we need a formalism aimed at

522: dealing with sequences of symbols from a finite alphabet. There are

523: many candidates of this kind, including regular expressions and their

524: subclasses, grammars of various kinds, deterministic or

525: nondeterministic automata, temporal logics, first order logic and

526: higher order logics.

527: 

528: 

529: Our choice, which will be carefully motivated later on, is to use

530: three-valued counterparts of a certain particular class of finite

531: automata and of past tense temporal logic. When the probabilities come

532: into play conditional events of a fixed probability space are

533: represented by Markov chains.

534: 

535: We introduce here briefly the main formalisms used throughout this

536: paper: temporal logic, Moore machines and Markov chains.

537: 

538: \subsection{Temporal logic}

539: 

540: Let us first define {\em temporal logic of linear discrete past time},

541: called $\TL.$ We follow the exposition in \cite{Emerson}, tailoring

542: the definitions somewhat towards our particular needs.

543: 

544: The formulas are built up from the set $\E$ (the same set of basic

545: events as before), interpreted as propositional variables here, and

546: are closed under the following formula formation rules:

547: 

548: \begin{enumerate}

549: \item Every $a\in \E$ is a formula of temporal logic.

550: \item If $\varphi,\psi\in \TL,$ then their boolean combinations

551: $\varphi\lor \psi$ $\lnot\varphi$ are in $\TL.$ The other Boolean

552: connectives: $\land,\to,\lra,\dots$ can be defined in terms of $\lnot$

553: and $\lor,$ as usual.

554: 

555: \item If $\varphi,\psi\in \TL,$ then their past tense temporal

556: combinations $\PREV\varphi$ and $\varphi\Since\psi$ are in $\TL,$

557: where $\PREV\varphi$ is spelled ``previously $\varphi.$''

558: \end{enumerate}

559: 

560: A model of temporal logic is a sequence $\M=s_0,s_1,\dots,s_n$ of states, each

561: state being a function from $\E$ (the same set of basic events as before) to

562: the boolean values $\{0,1\}.$ Note that a state can be therefore understood as

563: an atomic event from $\Omega,$ and $\M$ can be thought of as a word from

564: $\Omega^+.$ To be explicit we declare that the states of

565: $\M$ are ordered by $\leq.$ Rather than using the indices of states to denote

566: their order, we simply write $s\leq t$ to denote that a state $t$ comes later

567: than, or is equal to, a state $s;$ similarly $s+1$ denotes the successor state

568: of $s.$ We adopt the convention that, unless explicitly indicated otherwise, a

569: model is always of length $n+1,$ and thus $n$ is always the last state of a

570: model.

571: 

572: For every state $s$ of $\M$ we define inductively what it means that a

573: formula $\varphi\in\TL$ is satisfied in the state $s$ of $\M,$

574: symbolically $\M,s\models\varphi.$

575: 

576: \begin{enumerate}

577: \item $\M,s\models a$ iff $s(a)=1$

578: \item

579: \begin{align*}

580: \M,s\models\lnot\varphi&:\iff\ \M,s\not\models\varphi,\\

581: \M,s\models\varphi\lor\psi&:\iff

582: \M,s\models\varphi\ \text{or}\ \M,s\models\psi.

583: \end{align*}

584: 

585: 

586: \item

587: \begin{align*}

588: \M,s\models\PREV\varphi&:\iff s>0\ \text{and}\ \M,s-1\models\varphi;\\

589: \M,s\models\varphi\Since\psi&:\iff(\exists t\leq s)(\M,t\models\psi\

590: \text{and}\ (\forall t< w\leq s)M,w\models\varphi).

591: \end{align*}

592: \end{enumerate}

593: 

594: The syntactic abbreviations $\PBOX\varphi$ and $\PDIA\varphi$ are of

595: common use in $\TL.$ They are defined by $\PDIA\varphi\equiv\FALSE

596: \Since\varphi$ and $\PBOX\varphi\equiv\lnot\PDIA\lnot\varphi.$ The

597: first of them is spelled ``once $\varphi$'' and the latter ``always in

598: the past $\varphi$''.

599:  

600: Their semantics is then equivalent to

601: \begin{align*}

602: \M,s\models\PBOX\varphi&:\iff(\forall t\leq s)\M,t\models\varphi;\\

603: \M,s\models\PDIA\varphi&:\iff(\exists t\leq s) \M,t\models\varphi.

604: \end{align*}

605: 

606: 

607: Using the given temporal and boolean connectives, one can write down

608: quite complex formulae describing temporal properties of models

609: $\M,s.$ We will see several such examples in this paper, and even more

610: can be found in  \cite{cea}.

611: 

612: 

613: \subsection{Moore machines}\label{MM}

614: 

615: In this section we follow \cite{HU}, tailoring the definitions, again,

616: towards our needs.

617: 

618: 

619: A {\em deterministic finite automaton\/} is a five-tuple

620: $\A=(Q,\Omega,\delta,q_0,T),$ where $Q$ is its set of states, $\Omega$

621: (the same set of atomic events as before) is the input alphabet,

622: $q_0\in Q$ is the initial state and $\delta: Q \times\Omega\to Q$ is

623: the transition function.  $T\subseteq Q$ is the set of accepting

624: states.

625: 

626: We picture $\A$ as a labelled directed graph, whose vertices are

627: elements of $Q,$ a the function $\delta$ is represented by directed

628: edges labelled by elements of $\Omega$: the edge labelled by

629: $\omega\in\Omega$ from $q\in Q$ leads to $\delta(q,\omega).$ The

630: initial state is typically indicated by an unlabelled edge ``from

631: nowhere'' to this state.

632: 

633: As the letters of the input word $w\in\Omega^+$ come in one after

634: another, we walk in the graph, always choosing the edge labelled by

635: the letter we receive. What we do with the word depends on the state

636: we are in upon reaching  the end of the word. If it is in $T,$ the

637: automaton accepts the input, otherwise it rejects it.

638: 

639: Formally, to describe the computation of $\A$ we extend $\delta$ to a

640: function $\hat{\delta}: Q \times\Omega^+\to Q$ in the

641: following way: 

642: 

643: \[\hat{\delta}(q,w)=\begin{cases}

644: \delta(q,w)&\text{if $|w|=1$}\\

645: \delta(\hat{\delta}(q,v),\omega)&\text{if $w=v\omega.$}

646:                     \end{cases}

647: \]

648: 

649: $L(\A)\subseteq\Omega^+$ is the set of words accepted by $\A.$

650: 

651: A {\em Moore machine $\A$} is a six-tuple

652: $\A=(Q,\Omega,\Delta,\delta,h,q_0),$ where $(Q,\Omega,\delta,q_0)$ is

653: a deterministic finite automaton but the set of accepting states,

654: $\Delta$ is a finite output alphabet and $h$ is the output function

655: $Q\to\Delta.$ In addition to what $\A$ does as a finite automaton, at

656: each step it reports to the outside world the value $h(q)$ of the

657: state $q$ in which it is at the moment.  Drawing a Moore machine we

658: indicate $h$ by labelling the states of its underlying finite

659: automaton by their values under $h.$ In addition, we almost always

660: make certain graphical simplifications: we merge all the transitions

661: joining the same pair of states into a single transition, labelled by

662: the union (evaluated in $\Sigma$) of all the labels. Sometimes we go

663: even farther and drop the label altogether from one transition, which

664: means that all the remaining input letters follow this transition.

665: 

666: Formally, a Moore machine computes a function $f_\A:\Omega^+\to

667: \Delta^+$ defined by

668: 

669: \[

670: f_\A(\omega_1\omega_2\dots\omega_n)

671: =h(\hat{\delta}(q_0,\omega_1))h(\hat{\delta}(q_0,\omega_1\omega_2))\dots

672: h(\hat{\delta}(q_0,\omega_1\omega_2\dots\omega_n))

673: \]

674: 

675: 

676: (note that $|f_\A(\omega_1\omega_2\dots\omega_n)|=n,$ as desired), and

677: a function $g_\A:\Omega^\infty\to \Delta^\infty$ defined by

678: 

679: \[g_\A(\omega_1\omega_2\dots)=

680: \bigsqcup\{f_\A(\omega_1\omega_2\dots\omega_n)~/~n=1,2,\dots\}.\]

681: 

682: 

683: 

684: We will be interested in Moore machines which compute $\trzy $-valued

685: functions.  This amounts to partitioning the state set $Q$ of $\A$

686: into three subsets $T,F,B,$ which we often make into parts of the

687: machine.  If we do so, we call the states in $T$ the {\em accepting

688: states\/} and the states in $F$ the {\em rejecting states}.  There

689: will be no special name for the states in $B.$

690: 

691: 

692: A Moore machine $\A$ is called {\em counter-free\/} if there is no

693: word $w\in\Omega^+$ and no states $q_1,q_2,\dots,q_s,\ s>1,$ such that

694: $\hat\delta(q_1,w)=q_2,\dots,\hat\delta(q_{s-1},w)=

695: q_s,\hat\delta(q_s,w)=q_1.$

696: 

697: 

698: 

699: \subsection{Markov chains}

700: 

701: For us, Markov chains are a synonym of {\em Markov chains with

702: stationary transitions and finite state space.}

703: 

704: 

705: Formally, given a finite set $I$ of {\em states} and a fixed

706: function $p:I\times I\to[0,1]$ satisfying 

707: 

708: \begin{equation}\label{stoch}

709: (\forall i\in I)\qquad\sum_{j\in I}p(i,j)=1,

710: \end{equation}

711: the {\em Markov chain\/} with state space $I$ and transitions $p$ is a

712: sequence $\X=X_0,X_1,\dots$ of random variables $X_n:W\to I$, such

713: that

714: 

715: \begin{equation}\label{M1}\Pr(X_{n+1}=j|X_n=i)=p(i,j).\end{equation}

716: 

717: The standard result of probability theory is that there exists a probability

718: triple $(W,\fM,\Pr)$ and a sequence $\X$ such that \eqref{M1} is

719: satisfied. $W$ is indeed the space of infinite sequences of ordered pairs

720: of elements from $I,$ and $\Pr$ is a certain product measure on this set.

721: 

722: 

723: One can arrange the values $p(i,j)$ in a matrix $\Pi=(p(i,j);i,j\in

724: I).$ Of course, $p(i,j)\geq 0$ and $\sum_{j\in I}p(i,j)=1$ for every

725: $i.$ Every real square matrix $\Pi$ satisfying these conditions is

726: called {\em stochastic.}  Likewise, the initial distribution of $\X$

727: is that of $X_0,$ which can be conveniently represented by a vector

728: $\Xi_0=(p(i); i\in I).$ Its choice is independent from the function

729: $p(i,j).$

730: 

731: It is often very convenient to represent Markov chains by matrices,

732: since many manipulations on Markov chains correspond to natural

733: algebraic operations performed on the matrices.

734: 

735: 

736: For our purposes, it is convenient to imagine the Markov chain $\X$ in

737: another, equivalent form: Let $K_I$ be the complete directed graph on

738: the vertex set $I.$ First we randomly choose the starting vertex in

739: $I,$ according to the initial distribution.  Next, we start walking in

740: $K_I;$ at each step, if we are in the vertex $i,$ we choose the edge

741: $(i,j)$ to follow with probability $p(i,j).$ If we define

742: $X_n=(\text{the vertex in which we are after $n$ steps}),$ then $X_n$

743: is indeed the same $X_n$ as in \eqref{M1}.

744: 

745: So we will be able to {\em draw\/} Markov chains.  Doing so, we will

746: often omit edges $(i,j)$ with $p(i,j)=0.$

747: 

748: \paragraph{Classification of states}

749: 

750: For two states $i,j$ of a Markov chain $\X$ with transition

751: probabilities $p$ we say that $i$ {\em communicates\/} with $j$ iff

752: there is a nonzero probability of eventually getting from $i$ to $j.$

753: Equivalently, it means that there is a sequence

754: $i=i_1,i_2,\dots,i_n=j$ of states such that $p(i_k,i_{k+1})>0$ for

755: $k=1,\dots,n-1.$ The reflexive relation of mutual communication (i.e.,

756: that $i$ communicates with $j$ and $j$ communicates with $i$ or $i=j$)

757: is an equivalence relation on $I.$ Class $[i]$ communicates with class

758: $[j]$ iff $i$ communicates with $j.$

759: 

760: The relation of communication is a partial ordering relation on

761: classes. The minimal elements in this partial ordering are called {\em

762: ergodic sets}, and nonminimal elements are called {\em transient

763: sets}. The elements of ergodic and transient sets are called ergodic

764: and transient states, respectively.

765: 

766: A Markov chain all whose ergodic sets are one-element is called {\em

767: absorbing}, and its ergodic states are called absorbing.

768: 

769: For ergodic sets one can be further define their {\em period.} Period

770: of an ergodic state $i$ is the gcd of all the numbers $p$ such that

771: there is a sequence $i=i_1,i_2,\dots,i_p=i$ of states such that

772: $p(i_k,i_{k+1})>0$ for $k=1,\dots,p-1.$ It can be shown that period is

773: a class property, i.e., all states in one ergodic class have the same

774: period. 

775: 

776: An ergodic set is called {\em aperiodic\/} iff its period is $1.$

777: Equivalently, it means that for every two $i,j$ in this set and all

778: sufficiently large $n$ there exists a sequence $i=i_1,i_2,\dots,i_n=j$

779: of states such that $p(i_k,i_{k+1})>0$ for $k=1,\dots,n-1.$

780: 

781: Every periodic class $C$ of period $p>1$ can be partitioned into $p$

782: periodic sub-classes $C_1,\dots,C_p$ such that $\Pr(X_{n+1}\in

783: C_{k+1\pmod p}|X_{n}\in C_{k\pmod p})=1$ for all $k.$

784: 

785: 

786: \section{Constructing conditionals}

787: 

788: We make a terminological distinction. If we speak about a {\em

789: conditional object}, we do not assume any probability space structure

790: imposed on $\Omega.$ When we have such structure

791: $(\Omega,\Sigma,\Pr),$ we speak about a {\em conditional event},

792: instead.

793: 

794: \subsection{Conditional objects}

795: 

796: First of all, let us note that any $\TL$ formula can be understood as

797: a definition of a pre-conditional from $\PC,$ which is indeed

798: $\dwa$-valued. Indeed, states of any model of temporal logic can be

799: interpreted as elements of $\Omega,$ and the whole model is thus an

800: element of $\Omega^+.$ The value the pre-conditional assigns to 

801: model $\M$ is $1$ if $\M,n\models\varphi$ and $0$ otherwise.

802: 

803: We construct a three-valued extension $\TT$ of $\TL$ as the set of

804: all pairs $(\varphi|\psi)$ of formulas from $\TL.$ The operator

805: $(\cdot|\cdot)$ can be understood as a {\em present tense

806: connective\/} of pre-conditionals, and, since formulas of $\TL$ are

807: $\dwa$-valued, it is sufficient to define its action as follows:

808: 

809: \[\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|} \hline

810: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{(x | y)}\\ \hline\hline x\diagdown y &0 &1 &\bot\\

811: \hline 0 &\bot &0 &~\\ \hline 1 &\bot &1 &~\\ \hline \bot &~ &~

812: &~\\ \hline

813: \end{array}

814: \]

815: 

816: \begin{definition}

817: A {\em conditional object of type 1\/} is a pre-conditional $c\in

818: \PC,$ definable in $\TT.$ The set of such conditional objects is denoted

819: $\CC.$

820: \end{definition}

821: 

822: 

823: \begin{definition} A {\em conditional object of type 2\/} is a pre-conditional

824: $c_+\in \PC_+,$ such that $c_+$ is computable by a $\trzy $-valued

825: counter-free Moore machine. The set of such conditional objects is denoted

826: $\CC_+.$

827: \end{definition}

828: 

829: \begin{definition} A {\em conditional object of type 3\/} is a pre-conditional

830: $c_\infty\in \PC_\infty,$ such that $c_\infty$ is computable by a $\trzy

831: $-valued counter-free Moore machine. The set of such conditional objects is

832: denoted $\CC_\infty.$

833: \end{definition}

834: 

835: 

836: The following proposition says that the conditional objects of types

837: 1, 2 and 3 are identical up to the way of representing

838: pre-conditionals.

839: 

840: \begin{theorem}\label{tfae}

841: \begin{align*}

842: \CC_+&=\{c_+\in \PC_+~/~c\in \CC\},\\

843: \CC_\infty&=\{c_\infty\in\PC_\infty~/~c\in\CC\},\\

844: \CC&=\{c\in \PC~/~c_\infty\in \CC_\infty\}.

845: \end{align*}

846: \end{theorem}

847: \begin{proof}

848: The equalities $\CC_+=\{c_+\in \PC_+~/~c_\infty\in \CC_\infty\}$ and

849: $\CC_\infty=\{c_\infty\in\PC_\infty~/~c_+\in\CC_+\}$ are obvious.

850: What remains to be proven are $\CC_+=\{c_+\in \PC_+~/~c\in \CC\}$ and

851: $\CC=\{c\in\PC~/~c_+\in\CC_+\}$

852: 

853: It is well-known \cite{Emerson} that propositional temporal logic of

854: past tense and (finite) deterministic automata are of equal expressive

855: power, i.e., in our terminology, the sets of $\dwa$-valued

856: pre-conditionals from $\PC$ definable in $\TL$ and computable by

857: deterministic finite automata are equal. Indeed the translations

858: between temporal logic and automata are effective.

859: 

860: We start with the first equality. Let $c$ be defined by a $\TT$

861: formula $(\varphi|\psi).$ Let $\A=(Q_\A,\Omega,\delta_\A,q_\A,T_\A)$

862: and $\B=(Q_\B,\Omega,\delta_\B,q_\B,T_\B)$ be deterministic finite

863: automata, computing the functions $\Omega^+\to\dwa$ defined by

864: $\varphi$ and $\psi,$ respectively.

865: 

866: Consider the Moore machine $(\A|\B)=(Q_\A\times

867: Q_\B,\Omega,\trzy,\delta,h,(q_\A,q_\B)),$ where

868: \begin{align*}

869: \delta((p,q),\omega)&=(\delta_\A(p,\omega),\delta_\B(q,\omega)),\\

870: h((p,q))&=\begin{cases}1&\text{if $p\in T_A$ and $q\in T_\B$},\\

871:                      0&\text{if $p\notin T_A$ and $q\in T_\B$},\\

872:                      \bot&\text{otherwise.}

873:         \end{cases}

874: \end{align*}

875: 

876: It is immediate to see that $(\A|\B)$ computes exactly

877: $(\varphi|\psi)_+.$

878: 

879: To prove the second equality, let $\A=(Q,\Omega,\trzy,\delta,h,q_0)$

880: be a Moore machine computing $c_+.$ We construct two deterministic

881: finite automata $\A_1=(Q,\Omega,\delta,q_0,\vec{h}^{-1}(\{1\}))$ and

882: $\A_2=(Q,\Omega,\delta,q_0,\vec{h}^{-1}(\{0,1\})$ from $\A,$ where

883: $\vec{h}^{-1}$ stands for the co-image under $h.$ Now let $\varphi_1$

884: and $\varphi_2$ be $\TL$ formulae corresponding to $\A_1$ and $\A_2,$

885: respectively. 

886: 

887: It is again immediate to see that $(\varphi_1|\varphi_2)$ defines

888: exactly the conditional in $\CC$ computed in $\CC_+$ by $\A.$

889: \end{proof}

890: 

891: Consequently, we can freely choose between the three available

892: representations of conditional objects. Doing so, we regard $\TT$ to

893: be the {\em logic of conditional objects}, while Moore machines

894: represent their {\em machine representation}. All these

895: representations are equivalent, thanks to Theorem~\ref{tfae}.

896: 

897: 

898: The classes $\CC,\ \CC_+$ and $\CC_\infty$ represent the {\em

899: semantics\/} of conditional objects, and again we can freely choose

900: the particular kind of semantical objects, thanks to

901: \eqref{reprezentacje}.

902: 

903: As an example, the simple conditional $(a|b)\in \TT$ is computed by

904: the following Moore machine.

905: 

906: 

907: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]

908: 

909: \[\UseTips

910: \xymatrix @C=15mm @R=10mm

911: {

912: {}\save[]+<5mm,-5mm>*{}\ar[rd]\restore&&*+++[o][F]{1}

913: \ar@(ul,ur)[]^{{ba}}

914: \ar[dd]^{{ba^\C}}

915: \ar@/_9mm/[dl]_{{b^\C}}\\

916: &*+++[o][F]{\bot}

917: \ar@(dl,l)[]^{{b^\C}}

918: \ar[ur]_{{ba}}

919: \ar@/_9mm/[dr]_{{ba^\C}}\\

920: &&*+++[o][F]{0}

921: \ar@(ld,dr)[]_{{ba^\C}}

922: \ar@/_9mm/[uu]_{{ba}}

923: \ar[ul]_{{b^\C}}

924: }

925: \]

926: \caption{Moore machine representing  conditional object

927: $(a|b).$}\label{f1}

928: \end{figure}

929: 

930: 

931: The above Moore machine, as it is easily seen, acts exactly according to the

932: rule ``ignore $b^\C$'s, decide depending on the truth status of $a$ when $b$

933: appears''. So indeed it represents the repetitions of the experiment for

934: $(a|b)$ according to the ``bridge'' repetition rule {\em start history anew}.

935: 

936: 

937: 

938: \subsection{Conditional events}

939: 

940: We will be using the name {\em conditional events\/} to refer to

941: conditionals considered with a probability space in the background.

942: 

943: Let $(\Omega,\PP(\Omega),\Pr)$ be a probability space.

944: 

945: \begin{definition}[Conditional event] Let $c\in \CC$ be a conditional object

946: over $\Omega.$ Suppose $\Omega$ is endowed with a probability space

947: structure $(\Omega,\Sigma,\Pr).$ With $c$ we associate the sequence

948: $\Y=\Y(c)=Y_1,Y_2,\dots$ of random variables $\Omega^\infty\to\trzy ,$

949: defined by the formula

950: 

951: \begin{equation}\label{e1}

952: Y_n(w)=\text{$n$-th-letter-of}(c_\infty(w)),

953: \end{equation}

954: 

955: where $\Omega^\infty$ is considered with the product probability structure.

956: 

957: We call $\Y$ the {\em conditional event\/} associated with $c,$ and denote it

958: $\ce{c},$ while $Y_n$ is then denoted $\ce{c}_n.$ Note that we do not include

959: the probability space in the notation. It will be always clear what

960: $(\Omega,\PP(\Omega),\Pr)$ is.

961: \end{definition}

962: 

963: In particular, $\Pr(\ce{c}_n=\true)$ is the probability that at time

964: $n$ the conditional is true, $\Pr(\ce{c}_n=\false)$ is the probability

965: that at time $n$ the conditional is false, and $\Pr(\ce{c}=\bot)$ is

966: the probability that at time $n$ the conditional is undefined.

967: 

968: 

969: \begin{definition}[Probability of conditional events]~\\

970: We define the {\em asymptotic probability at time $n$\/} of a

971: conditional $c$ by the formula

972: 

973: \begin{equation}\label{e2}

974: \pr_n(c)=\dfrac{\Pr(\ce{c}_n=1)}

975: {\Pr(\ce{c}_n=0\ \text{or}\ 1)}.

976: \end{equation}

977: 

978: If the denominator is $0,$ $\pr_n(c)$ is undefined.

979: 

980: The {\em asymptotic probability\/} of $c$ is

981: 

982: \begin{equation}\label{e3.5}

983: \Pr(c)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\pr_n(c),

984: \end{equation}

985: 

986: provided that $\pr_n(c)$ is defined for all sufficiently large $n$ and

987: the limit exists.

988: 

989: We will regard $\ce{c}$ as {\em probabilistic semantics\/} of $c.$

990: 

991: If $\varphi\in\TL$ then we write $\Pr(\varphi)$ for $\Pr((\varphi|\TRUE)).$

992: \end{definition}

993: 

994: 

995: It is perhaps reasonable to explain why we want the conditional event

996: and its probability to be defined in this way.  The main motivation is

997: that we want the conditional event and its probability to be natural

998: and intuitive. And we achieve this by using the recipe of de Finetti,

999: which in our case materializes in the above definitions.

1000: 

1001: 

1002: 

1003: \section{Underlying Markov chains, Bayes' Formula and classification of

1004: conditional events} 

1005: \label{classifying}

1006: 

1007: 

1008: \subsection{Underlying Markov chains}

1009: 

1010: Let $c$ be a conditional object and let $\A=(Q,\Omega,\delta,\trzy,h,q_0)$ be

1011: a counter-free Moore machine which computes $c_\infty.$

1012: 

1013: We define a Markov chain $\X=\X(\A)$ by taking the set of states of

1014: $\X$ to be the set $Q$ of states of $\A,$ and the transition function

1015: $p$ to be defined by

1016: 

1017: \begin{equation*}

1018: p(q,q')=\sum_{\substack{\omega\in\Omega\\\delta(q,\omega)=q'}}\Pr(\{\omega\}).

1019: \end{equation*}

1020: 

1021: Indeed, for every $q$ we have

1022: 

1023: \begin{equation*}

1024: \sum_{q'}p(q,q')

1025: =\sum_{q'}\sum_{\substack{\omega\in\Omega\\

1026: \delta(q,\omega)=q'}}\Pr(\{\omega\}) 

1027: =\sum_{\omega\in\Omega}\Pr(\{\omega\}) =1,

1028: \end{equation*}

1029: 

1030: which means that the function $p$ satisfies \eqref{stoch}, which is

1031: the criterion for being a transition probability function of a Markov

1032: chain.  The initial probability distribution is defined by

1033: 

1034: \[

1035: p(q)=

1036: \begin{cases}1&\text{if $q=q_0,$ the initial state of $\A,$}\\

1037:              0&\text{otherwise.}

1038: \end{cases}

1039: \]

1040: 

1041: Therefore we have indeed converted $\A$ into a Markov chain $\X.$

1042: 

1043: 

1044: In the pictorial representation of the conversion process is much

1045: simpler: we take the drawing of $\A,$ and replace all the letters from

1046: $\Omega$ marking transitions by their probabilities according to $\Pr,$

1047: and then contract multiple transitions between the same states into a

1048: single one, summing up their probabilities.

1049: 

1050: \begin{theorem}\label{transient-aperiodic} $\X$ is a Markov chain in

1051: which only transient and aperiodic states exist.

1052: \end{theorem}

1053: 

1054: \begin{proof} Suppose $\X$ has a periodic set $C$ of period $p>1,$ and

1055: $C_1,\dots,C_p$ its division into periodic subclasses. Let $\omega\in

1056: \Omega$ be any atomic event with $\Pr(\{\omega\})>0.$ Let $q\in C_1.$

1057: Since $\Pr(X_{n+1}\in C_{k+1\pmod p}|X_{n}\in C_{k\pmod p})=1$ for all

1058: $k,$ it follows that $\delta^1(q,\omega)=\delta(q,\omega)\in C_{2\pmod

1059: p},$ and likewise

1060: $\delta^{k+1}(q,\omega)=\delta(\delta^k(q,\omega))\in C_{k+1\pmod p}$

1061: for $k\geq 1.$

1062: 

1063: However, $C$ is finite, so there must be $s\neq t$ such that

1064: $\delta^s(q,\omega)=\delta^t(\omega).$

1065: 

1066: The sequence 

1067: 

1068: \[\delta^s(q,\omega),\delta^{s+1}(q,\omega),\dots,\delta^t(q,\omega)

1069: =\delta^s(q,\omega)\] 

1070: 

1071: thus violates the assumption that $\A$ is counter-free.\end{proof}

1072: 

1073: The next corollary follows by the classical result about finite Markov chains.

1074: 

1075: 

1076: \begin{corollary}\label{limits}

1077: For every state $i$ of $\X,$ the limit $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(X_n=i)$

1078: exists.

1079: \end{corollary}

1080: 

1081: 

1082: 

1083: Using $h:Q\to\trzy,$ the {\em acceptance mapping of $\A,$} we get

1084: 

1085: \begin{theorem}

1086: \(\label{Y=h(X)}\ce{c}=h(\X).\)\qed

1087: \end{theorem}

1088: 

1089: 

1090: Note that $\ce{c}$ defined above need not be a Markov chain

1091: itself, but it is a simple projection of a Markov chain, extracting

1092: all the invariant information.  Of course, it will be typically very

1093: beneficial to work most of the time with $\X,$ having the whole theory

1094: of Markov chains as a tool-set, and only then to move to $\ce{c}.$

1095: 

1096: Let us examine the previously given definition of $(a|b)$ to see what its

1097: probability is.

1098: 

1099: The Markov chain looks as follows: 

1100: 

1101: 

1102: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]

1103: 

1104: \[\UseTips

1105: \xymatrix @C=15mm @R=10mm

1106: {

1107: {}\save[]+<5mm,-5mm>*{}\ar[rd]\restore

1108: &&*+++[o][F]{1}

1109: \ar@(ul,ur)[]^{{\Pr(ba)}}

1110: \ar[dd]^{{\Pr(ba^\C)}}

1111: \ar@/_9mm/[dl]_{{\Pr(b^\C)}}\\

1112: &*+++[o][F]{\bot}

1113: \ar@(dl,l)[]^{{\Pr(b^\C)}}

1114: \ar[ur]_{{\Pr(ba)}}

1115: \ar@/_9mm/[dr]_{{\Pr(ba^\C)}}\\

1116: &&*+++[o][F]{0}

1117: \ar@(ld,dr)[]_{{\Pr(ba^\C)}}

1118: \ar@/_14mm/[uu]_{{\Pr(ba)}}

1119: \ar[ul]_{{\Pr(b^\C)}}

1120: }

1121: \]

1122: \caption{Markov chain corresponding to the Moore machine on Fig.\

1123: \ref{f1}.}\label{f2}

1124: \end{figure}

1125: 

1126: where the initial distribution assumes probability 1 given to the

1127: state pointed to by the arrow ``from nowhere''.  

1128: 

1129: It is easy to check that $\Pr((a|b))=\Pr(ba)/\Pr(b),$ provided that

1130: $\Pr(b)>0.$ Indeed, for every $n$ holds $\Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=1)=\Pr(ba)$

1131: and $\Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=0)=\Pr(ba^\C),$ so $\Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=0\

1132: \text{or}\ 1)=\Pr(ba)+\Pr(ba^\C)=\Pr(b).$ It is so because, no matter

1133: in which state we are, these are the probabilities of getting to $1$

1134: and $0$ in the next step, respectively. This evaluation will follow from

1135: Bayes' Formula below, too.

1136: 

1137: \subsection{Bayes' Formula}

1138: First of all, let us note that for each $\star\in\trzy$ the limit

1139: $\lim_{n\to\infty}\pr(\ce{c}_n=\star)$ exists, since, for any choice

1140: of a Moore machine $\A$ computing $c_+$ and assuming $\X=\X(\A),$

1141: $\pr(\ce{c}_n=\star)$ is a sum of $\pr(X_n=i)$ over all states $i$ of

1142: $\X$ with $h(i)=\star,$ and the latter probabilities converge by

1143: Corollary \ref{limits}.

1144: 

1145: A conditional event is called {\em regular\/} iff

1146: $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c}_n=0\ \text{or}\ 1)>0.$ In particular, for

1147: regular conditionals the limit in \eqref{e3.5} always exists and is

1148: equal to

1149: 

1150: \begin{equation*}

1151: \dfrac{\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c}_n=1)}

1152: {\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c}_n=0\ \text{or}\ 1)}.

1153: \end{equation*}

1154: 

1155: Turning to the logical representation of conditionals,  we have thus

1156: 

1157: \begin{theorem}[Bayes' Formula]\label{Bayes}

1158: For $(\varphi|\psi)\in\TT$ 

1159: \[\Pr((\varphi|\psi))=\frac{\Pr(\varphi\land\psi)}{\Pr(\psi)}\]

1160: 

1161: whenever the right-hand-side above is well-defined.\qed

1162: \end{theorem}

1163: 

1164: Note that Bayes' Formula has been expected by de Finetti for the frequency

1165: based conditionals.

1166: 

1167: \subsection{Classifying conditional events}

1168: 

1169: It is interesting to consider the conditionals $c$ for which

1170: $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c}_n=0\ \text{or}\ 1)=0.$ We can distinguish

1171: two types of such conditional events: those for which $\Pr(\ce{c}_n=0\

1172: \text{or}\ 1)$ is identically $0$ for infinitely many $n,$ and those

1173: for which it is nonzero for all but finitely many $n$. The former will

1174: be called {\em degenerate}, the latter {\em strange}. We call {\em

1175: strictly degenerate\/} those degenerate events, for which

1176: $\Pr(\ce{c}_n=0\ \text{or}\ 1)$ for all but finitely many $n.$

1177: 

1178: The degenerate conditional events correspond to bets which infinitely

1179: often cannot be resolved, because they are undefined, and strictly

1180: degenerate events are those which are almost never defined.

1181: 

1182: Strange conditional events are more interesting. The Bayes' Formula is

1183: senseless for them, so we have to use some ad hoc methods to see if

1184: their asymptotic probability exists or not.

1185: 

1186: The first example shows that the sequence $\pr_n(c)$ can be

1187: nonconvergent for strange $c.$

1188: 

1189: Consider $c_1=(a|\PBOX ((\PREV a\to a^\C)\land(\PREV a^\C\to

1190: a)\land(\lnot\PREV \TRUE\to a ))),$ where $0<\Pr(a)<1.$ The long

1191: temporal formula asserts that $a$ always follows $a^\C$ and $a^\C$

1192: always follows $a,$ and at the beginning of the process ($n=1$), where

1193: $\PREV \TRUE $ is false, $a$ holds.

1194: 

1195: It is easily verified that 

1196: 

1197: \[\pr_n(\ce{c_1})=\begin{cases}

1198:                  0&\text{if $n$ is even},\\

1199:                  1&\text{if $n$ is odd}.

1200:            \end{cases}

1201: \]

1202: 

1203: Thus the finite-time behaviour of this conditional is not

1204: probabilistic---its truth value depends solely on the {\em age\/} of

1205: the system. So for somebody expecting a pure game of chances its

1206: behaviour must seem strange (and hence the name of this class of

1207: conditional events).

1208: 

1209: Note that we have just discovered the next feature of conditionals

1210: expected by de Finetti: nonconvergence of the limiting frequency when

1211: probability of the `given' part tends to $0.$

1212: 

1213: However, again following de Finetti, if $(\varphi|\varphi)$ is

1214: strange, its asymptotic probability is $1.$ E.g., $\Pr(\PBOX ((\PREV

1215: a\to a^\C)\land(\PREV a^\C\to a)\land(\lnot\PREV \TRUE\to a ))|\PBOX

1216: ((\PREV a\to a^\C)\land(\PREV a^\C\to a)\land(\lnot\PREV \TRUE\to a

1217: )))=1.$

1218: 

1219: Moreover, for $c_2=(a|\PBOX ((\PREV a\to  a^\C)\land(\PREV a^\C\to 

1220: a)))$ we have 

1221: \[\pr_n(\ce{c_2})=\begin{cases}

1222:                  1-\Pr(a)&\text{if $n$ is even},\\

1223:                  \Pr(a)&\text{if $n$ is odd}.

1224:            \end{cases}

1225: \]

1226: 

1227: Indeed, here the `given' part requires that $a$'a and $a^\C$'s

1228: alternate, but does not specify what is the case at the beginning of

1229: the process. So the probability of the whole conditional at odd times

1230: is the probability that $a$ has happened at time 1, and at even times

1231: it is the probability that $a$ has not happened at time 1.  Therefore,

1232: when $\Pr(a)=1/2,$ $\Pr(c_2)$ exists and is $1/2.$ So asymptotic

1233: probabilities which are neither $0$ nor $1$ are possible for strange

1234: conditionals events.

1235: 

1236: At present, the question whether there it is decidable if a given

1237: strange conditional event has an asymptotivc probability is open.

1238: However, we believe that te answer is positive and offer it as our

1239: cojecture.

1240: 

1241: 

1242: \begin{conj}

1243: The set of conditional events which have asymptotic probability is

1244: decidable.  Moreover, for those events which have asymptotic

1245: probability, its value is effectively computable. 

1246: \end{conj}

1247: 

1248: 

1249: 

1250: 

1251: 

1252: \section{Connectives of conditionals}

1253: 

1254: \subsection{Present tense connectives}

1255: 

1256: Let us recall that present tense connectives are those, whose definition

1257: in $\TT$ does not use temporal connectives, and therefore depends

1258: on the present, only. Equivalently, an $n$-ary present tense connective is

1259: completely characterised by a function $\trzy ^n\to\trzy .$ 

1260: 

1261: Here are several possible choices for the conjunction, which is always

1262: defined as a pointwise application of the following $\trzy $ valued

1263: functions. Above we display the notation for the corresponding kind of

1264: conjunction.

1265: 

1266: \[

1267: \conn{\land_{\SAC}}00001101\ \ \ \ 

1268: \conn{\land_{\GNW}}00001\bot0\bot\ \ \ \

1269: \conn{\land_{\Sch}}00\bot01\bot\bot\bot

1270: \]

1271: \[{\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline 

1272: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\sim x} \\\hline\hline x&\sim x\\\hline 0&1\\\hline

1273: 1&0\\\hline\bot&\bot\\\hline\end{array}}

1274: \]

1275: \[\conn{\lor_{\SAC}}01011101\ \ \ \ 

1276: \conn{\lor_{\GNW}}0111\bot1\bot\bot\ \ \ \

1277: \conn{\lor_{\Sch}}01\bot11\bot\bot\bot.

1278: \]

1279: 

1280: They can be equivalently described by syntactical manipulations in $\TT.$

1281: The reduction rules are as follows:

1282: 

1283: \begin{equation}\label{TLTL}

1284: \begin{split}

1285: (a|b)\land_\SAC(c|d)&=(abcd\lor abd^\C\lor cdb^\C|b\lor d)\\

1286: (a|b)\land_\GNW(c|d)&=(abcd|a^\C d\lor c^\C d\lor abcd)\\

1287: (a|b)\land_\Sch(c|d)&=(abcd|bd)\\

1288: \sim (a|b)&=(a^\C|b)\\

1289: (a|b)\lor_\SAC(c|d)&=(ab\lor cd|b\lor d)\\

1290: (a|b)\lor_\GNW(c|d)&=(ab\lor cd|ab\lor cd \lor bd)\\

1291: (a|b)\lor_\Sch(c|d)&=(ab\lor cd|bd).

1292: \end{split}

1293: \end{equation}

1294: 

1295: 

1296: The first is based on the principle ``if any of the arguments becomes

1297: defined, act!''.  A good example would be a quotation from \cite{c97}:

1298: 

1299: \begin{quote}\sl ``One of the most dramatic examples of the unrecognised

1300: use of compound conditioning was the first military strategy of our

1301: nation.   As the Colonialists waited for the British to attack, the

1302: signal was `One if by land and two if by sea'.  This is the

1303: conjunction of two conditionals with uncertainty!''

1304: \end{quote}

1305: 

1306: Of course, if the above was understood as a conjunction of two

1307: conditionals, the situation was crying for the use of $\land_\SAC,$

1308: whose definition has been proposed independently by Schay, Adams and

1309: Calabrese (the author of the quotation).

1310: 

1311: The conjunction $\land_{\GNW}$ represents a moderate approach, which

1312: in case of an apparent evidence for $\false$ reports $\false,$ but

1313: otherwise it prefers to report unknown in a case of any doubt. Note

1314: that this conjunction is essentially the same as {\em lazy

1315: evaluation},  known from programming languages. 

1316: 

1317: Finally, the conjunction $\land_\Sch$ is least defined, and acts

1318: (classically) only if both arguments become defined. It corresponds to

1319: the {\em strict evaluation}.

1320: 

1321: We have given an example for the use of $\land_\SAC.$ The uses of

1322: $\land_\GNW$ and $\land_\Sch$ can be found in any computer program

1323: executed in parallel, which uses either lazy or strict evaluation of

1324: its logical conditions. And indeed both of them happily coexist in

1325: many programming languages, in that one of them is the standard

1326: choice, the programmer can however explicitly override the default and

1327: choose the other evaluation strategy.

1328: 

1329: Let us mention that all the three systems above are in fact

1330: well-known, classical so to say three-valued logics: 

1331: $\langle\land_\GNW,\lor_\GNW,\sim\rangle$ is the  logic of

1332: \L{}ukasiewicz, $\langle\land_\SAC,\lor_\SAC,\sim\rangle$ is the logic

1333: of Soboci\'nski, and $\langle\land_\Sch,\lor_\Sch,\sim\rangle$ is the

1334: logic of Bochvar.

1335: 

1336: \subsection{Past tense connectives} 

1337: 

1338: The following connective is tightly related to very close to the conjunction

1339: of the {\em product space conditional event algebra\/} introduced in

1340: \cite{g94}. Detailed discussion of embeddings of existing algebras of

1341: conditional events into $\TT$ is included in the companion paper

1342: \cite{cea}. Our new conjunction, denoted $\land^\star,$ is defined

1343: precisely when at least one of its arguments is defined, so it

1344: resembles $\land_\SAC$ in this respect, but instead of assigning the

1345: other argument a default value when it is undefined, like $\SAC$ does,

1346: it uses its most recent defined value, instead.  However, when the

1347: other argument hasn't ever been defined, it is assumed to act like

1348: $\FALSE.$

1349: 

1350: In the language of $\TT$ $(a|b)\land^\star(c|d)$ can be expressed by

1351: \[((b^\C\Since (a\land b))\land(d^\C\Since (c\land

1352: d))|b\lor d).\]

1353: 

1354: 

1355: 

1356: 

1357: \subsection{Conclusion}

1358: 

1359: We believe that there is no reason to restrict our attention to any

1360: particular choice of an operation extending the classical conjunction,

1361: and call is {\em the conjunction of conditionals.} There are indeed

1362: many reasonable such extensions, which correspond to different

1363: intuitions and situations, they can coexist in a single formalism, and

1364: any restriction in this respect necessarily narrows the applicability

1365: of the formalism.

1366: 

1367: We believe that neither of the choices discussed in this paragraph is {\em

1368: the\/} conjunction of conditionals. There are indeed many possible choices,

1369: and all of them have their own merits.  In fact already the original system of

1370: Schay consisted of five operations:  $\sim,\land_\SAC,\lor_\SAC,\land_\Sch$

1371: and $\lor_\Sch.$ Moreover, he was aware that these operations still do not

1372: make the algebra functionally complete (even in the narrowed sense, restricted

1373: to defining only operations which are undefined for all undefined arguments).

1374: And in order to remedy this he suggested to use one of several additional

1375: operators, one of them being $\land_\GNW!$ So for him all those operations

1376: could coexist in one system.

1377: 

1378: \section{Three prisoner's puzzle}

1379: 

1380: 

1381: In order to demonstrate that our formalism allows for a precise

1382: treatment of problems with conditioning and probabilities, let us

1383: consider the following classical example of a probabilistic

1384: ``paradox''.  We will take this opportunity to highlight some of the

1385: practical issues of modelling using $\TT$ and Moore machines

1386: approach. Therefore our analysis will be very detailed.

1387: 

1388: \subsection{The puzzle}

1389: 

1390: The three prisoner's puzzle  \cite{p88} is the following: 

1391: 

1392: \begin{quote}

1393: Three prisoners are sentenced for execution. One day before their

1394: scheduled execution, prisoner $A$ learns that two of them have been

1395: pardoned.  $A$ calculates a probability of $2/3$ for him being

1396: pardoned.  Then he asks the Guard: ``Name me one of my fellows who

1397: will be pardoned.  The Guard tells him, that $B$ will be pardoned.

1398: Based on that information, $A$ recalculates the probability of being

1399: pardoned as $1/2$, since now only one pardon remains for him and $C$

1400: (the third prisoner) to share!  However, he could apply the same

1401: argument if the Guard had named $C$.  Furthermore, he knew beforehand

1402: that at least one of his fellows will be pardoned --- so what did he

1403: gain (or lose) by the answer?

1404: \end{quote}

1405: 

1406: The intuitive explanation is that after learning the Guard's testimony

1407: $G(B)$ that $B$ will be pardoned, $A$ should revise the probability of

1408: the event $P(A)$ (of him being pardoned) by computing $P(\PREV

1409: P(A)|G(B))$, and the probability evaluation yields in this case

1410: $2/3,$ as expected.

1411: 

1412: However, what he indeed calculated was $P(\PREV G(B)|P(A))$, assuming

1413: effectively that the pardon had been given with equal probabilities to

1414: all the pairs possible {\em after\/} Guard's testimony. This

1415: probability turns out to be $1/2.$

1416: 

1417: \subsection{Probability tree model}

1418: 

1419: First we present a simple probability tree analysis of the paradox,

1420: using the method which originates with Huygens \cite{huygens,shafer}

1421: and is indeed almost as old as the mathematically rigorous probability

1422: theory itself. We begin in the leftmost circle (before pardon), then

1423: each of the three pardoned pairs leads us to three next circles,

1424: indicating the situation after the pardon. Finally, we have all the

1425: possible testimonies of the Guard. All edges originating from the same

1426: circle are equiprobable. After Guard's testimony $G(B),$ only the two

1427: top circles on the right are possible, and their probabilities are in

1428: the proportion $2:1,$ the more probable one being the one in which $A$

1429: is pardoned, while he is executed in the other one. So indeed even

1430: after the testimony the probability that $A$ is pardoned remains

1431: $2/3.$ 

1432: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]

1433: \[\UseTips

1434: \xymatrix @C=20mm

1435: {

1436: &&*+++[o][F]{}

1437: \\

1438: &*+++[o][F]{}

1439: \ar[ur]^{\textstyle{G(B)}}

1440: &*+++[o][F]{}

1441: \\

1442: *+++[o][F]{}

1443: \ar[ur]^{\textstyle{P(AB)}}

1444: \ar[r]^(.7){\textstyle{P(BC)}}

1445: \ar[dr]_{\textstyle{AC}}

1446: &*+++[o][F]{}

1447: \ar[ur]^{\textstyle{G(B)}}

1448: \ar[dr]_{\textstyle{G(C)}}

1449: \\

1450: &*+++[o][F]{}

1451: \ar[dr]_{\textstyle{G(C)}}

1452: &*+++[o][F]{}

1453: \\

1454: &&*+++[o][F]{}

1455: }

1456: \]

1457: \caption[]{Probability tree analysis of the three prisoner

1458: puzzle.}

1459: \label{f6}

1460: \end{figure}

1461: 

1462: \subsection{$\TT$ and Moore machine models}

1463: 

1464: However, the tree shown above strongly resembles a Moore machine. And

1465: indeed, we augment it with the necessary details below. The most

1466: substantial change is that the Moore machine requires the same set of

1467: atomic possibilities is given at each state, which determine the next

1468: transition. Therefore:

1469: 

1470: \begin{itemize}

1471: \item The Guard testifies something irrelevant while the court decides

1472: the pardons, and the court decides something irrelevant while the Guard

1473: testifies. This change is made invisible by our convention of

1474: collapsing transitions and applying subsequently Boolean algebra

1475: simplifications, except that

1476: \item In cases when the Guard has no choice, we must replace the

1477: existing transition label by the full event, because the Guard has

1478: prescribed answer no matter whom he would like to name,

1479: \item And except that we have to decide about transitions from the

1480: states which are terminal in the tree model.  Because we believe that

1481: after being pardoned nobody can be prosecuted again for the same

1482: crime, and we do not believe in reincarnation, either, our choice is

1483: to use self-loops in the terminal states, yielding a ``Russian

1484: roulette'' model.

1485: \end{itemize}

1486: 

1487: 

1488: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]

1489: \[\UseTips

1490: \xymatrix @C=20mm

1491: {

1492: &&&*+++[o][F]{\textcolor{green}{1}}

1493: \ar@{.>}@(ur,dr)[]

1494: \\

1495: &&*+++[o][F]{\textcolor{green}{\bot}}

1496: \ar[ur]^{\textcolor{green}{\textstyle{\Omega}}}

1497: &*+++[o][F]{\textcolor{green}{0}}

1498: \ar@(ur,dr)@{.>}[]

1499: \\

1500: \ar@{.>}[r]

1501: &*+++[o][F]{\textcolor{green}{\bot}}

1502: \ar[ur]^{\textstyle{P(AB)}}

1503: \ar[r]^(.67){\textstyle{P(BC)}}

1504: \ar[dr]_{\textstyle{AC}}

1505: &*+++[o][F]{\textcolor{green}{\bot}}

1506: \ar[ur]_{\textstyle{G(B)}}

1507: \ar[dr]^{\textstyle{G(C)}}\\

1508: &&*+++[o][F]{\textcolor{green}{\bot}}

1509: \ar[dr]_{\textcolor{green}{\textstyle{\Omega}}}

1510: &*+++[o][F]{\textcolor{green}{\bot}}

1511: \ar@{.>}@(ur,dr)[]

1512: \\

1513: &&&*+++[o][F]{\textcolor{green}{\bot}}

1514: \ar@{.>}@(ur,dr)[]

1515: }

1516: \]

1517: \caption[]{Probability tree analysis of the three prisoner puzzle with

1518: {\color{green} extensions necessary to convert the diagram into a Moore

1519: machine.}}

1520: \label{f7}

1521: \end{figure}

1522: 

1523: This provides a next piece of evidence that our definition of

1524: conditional events is natural and close to intuitions.  In fact, one

1525: can embed the whole probability tree model into the formalism of

1526: Russian roulette Markov chains \cite{shafer}, and thus shows that our

1527: model of conditionals extends the method of probability trees.

1528: 

1529: Next we attempt to model the same paradox syntactically in $\TT.$ The

1530: construction of a correct $\TT$ representation is a little bit more

1531: complicated than the formula $P(\PREV P(A)|G(B))$ we have suggested

1532: previously, as this requires specifying the actions of the Guard,

1533: whose probabilities are affected by the pardon decision. So we assume

1534: that the Guard always tosses a coin. If he gets heads $(H)$, he tells

1535: the alphabetically first name among those applicable, and in case of

1536: tails $(T)$ the alphabetically last among them. This indicates the

1537: need to consider the strategy followed by the Guard. And in fact, the

1538: probabilities $A$ calculates depend on what he assumes about this

1539: strategy. So indeed now the answers of the Guard are shorthands for

1540: the combinations of the pardon decision and the coin toss outcome.

1541: Therefore $G(B)$ is $(\PREV P(AB)\land(H\lor T))\lor (\PREV P(BC)\land

1542: H).$ 

1543: 

1544: 

1545: Moreover, we have to decide what should be modelled by the conditional

1546: object, and what by the probability assignment, which turns the former

1547: into a stochastic process.  The general rule is that the more of the

1548: modelling is encoded in the probability assignment, the simpler the

1549: conditional and its Moore machine are.  On the other hand, encoding

1550: everything in the probability distribution is difficult and prone to

1551: errors, as the example of the poor prisoner shows. An, needless to

1552: say, a good model is one in which the proportions are just right. More

1553: on that below.

1554: 

1555: So formally the conditional looks now as follows:

1556: 

1557: \begin{equation}\label{3pris}

1558: \left(

1559: (\PREV AB)

1560: \lor

1561: (\PREV AC)

1562: \left|

1563: ((\PREV AB)\land (H\lor T))

1564: \lor

1565: ((\PREV BC)\land H)

1566: \right.\right),

1567: \end{equation}

1568: 

1569: with $\E=\{P(AB),P(BC),AC,H,T\},$ where the events $P(AB),$ $P(BC)$

1570: and $AC$ mutually exclusive and equiprobable, and similarly $H$ and

1571: $T$ mutually exclusive and equiprobable. (Our construction will easily

1572: handle non-equal probabilities, i.e., biased pardon decision and/or

1573: biased coin, too.) So the set $\Omega$ of atomic events is $\{ AB\,H,

1574: AB\,T, BC\,H, BC\,T,AC\,H, AC\,T\}, $ and these events are

1575: equiprobable under our probability assignment. However, we will be

1576: able to calculate the probability of \eqref{3pris} without the

1577: equiprobability assumption, too.

1578: 

1579: Note that, e.g., assuming events $A,B$ and $C$ to be nonexclusive

1580: individual pardon decisions of probability $1/3$ each, leads to more

1581: complicated conditional expression, because a substantial amount of

1582: coding effort must used just to ensure that always precisely two

1583: prisoners are pardoned. This makes the Moore machine more complicated,

1584: too. So this is certainly not a good model, because what can be easily

1585: taken care of by the probability assignment is instead modelled by

1586: logical methods. Such a model can be of course

1587: correct,\footnote{Although unnecessary complications certainly

1588: increase the risk of mistakes and make verification of the model

1589: harder.} but good means for us more than just correct.

1590: 

1591: But if we attempt to draw the Moore machine of our conditional, we

1592: discover that it is quite different from that on Fig.\ \ref{f7}.

1593: 

1594: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]

1595: \[\UseTips

1596: \xymatrix @R=18mm @C=9mm

1597: {

1598: &&*+++[o][F]{\bot}

1599: &&*+++[o][F]{0}

1600: \\

1601: &*+++[o][F]{1}

1602: \ar@(l,u)^(.63){AB(H\lor T)}

1603: \ar[rrrr]|(.4){BC(H\lor T)}

1604: \ar[ddrr]|(.44){AC(H\lor T)}

1605: &&&&*+++[o][F]{1}

1606: \ar[llllld]|{AB\,H}

1607: \ar[lllu]|{AB\,T}

1608: \ar[ul]|{BC\,H}

1609: \ar[dr]|{BC\,T}

1610: \ar[dd]|(.33){AC\,T}

1611: \ar[lllldd]|(.375){AC\,H}[]

1612: \\

1613: *+++[o][F]{0}

1614: &&&&&&*+++[o][F]{\bot}

1615: \\

1616: &*+++[o][F]{0}

1617: \ar[uuur]|(.25){AB(H\lor T)}

1618: \ar[urrrrr]|{BC(H\lor T)}

1619: \ar@/_5ex/[rrrr]_{AC(H\lor T)}

1620: &&*+++[o][F]{1}

1621: &&*+++[o][F]{\bot}

1622: \\

1623: &&&&&

1624: \ar@{.>}[r]

1625: &*+++[o][F.]{\bot}

1626: \ar@{.>}[uu]^(.7){BC}

1627: \ar@{.>}@/_2.3em/[uuuullll]|(.19){AB}

1628: \ar@{.>}[ul]^{AC}

1629: }

1630: \]

1631: \caption[]{Moore machine corresponding to formula

1632: \eqref{3pris}.}\label{f9}

1633: \end{figure}

1634: 

1635: The overall structure of the Moore machine is as follows: The entry

1636: states and transitions are dotted. Each of the three lines of three

1637: states (they form roughly edges of a triangle), consists of states

1638: with the same, already known pardon decision in the next experiment,

1639: while the current experiment's outcome is represented as the label of

1640: the state. Transitions are shown for one state on each edge only,

1641: because their targets depend on the input only, and not on the source

1642: within that edge.  And this is why we can calculate the probability of

1643: \eqref{3pris} in a quite straightforward way. For time greater than

1644: $1$ the probability of getting in two steps to a state with a given

1645: label does not depend on the current state nor on the

1646: time. Essentially, after the first step the edge of the triangle is

1647: chosen, which corresponds to the move to one of the states in the

1648: middle column of Fig.\ \ref{f7}. In the second step we move to the

1649: state with the label equal to the destination label from Fig.\

1650: \ref{f7}, and the edge it is found within depends on the next

1651: experiment, already. The similarity is even stronger if we compare

1652: Fig. \ref{f9} with Fig.\ \ref{3prisRR} rather than with Fig.\

1653: \ref{f7}. A formal calculation, using matrix calculus, can be found in

1654: Section \ref{algorytmy} below.

1655: 

1656: The most substantial difference is that \eqref{3pris} is not a

1657: ``Russian roulette'' model! To note this set time to $3$ and see: the

1658: present outcomes depend on the pardon decisions made at time $2$,

1659: while the Guard was testifying in the previous round of the

1660: experiment, and while we are hearing the testimony of the Guard now,

1661: the pardons are already decided as a part of the next experiment. So

1662: the probabilistic choices which we described as irrelevant for the

1663: Moore machine model, are parts of the previous/next repetition schema

1664: here. The overlapping experiments do not interfere, however, so this

1665: does not affect probabilities.  Furthermore, all the final outcome

1666: undefined values have been merged into one state. Finally, there are

1667: entry states which are visited just once and correspond to the

1668: situation at time $1$, when the Guard says something, but there is no

1669: pardon decision to compare it with.

1670: 

1671: A modified version of \eqref{3pris}, which is Russian roulette, is as

1672: follows: 

1673: 

1674: \begin{equation}\label{3prisRR}

1675: \left(

1676: (\atone AB)

1677: \lor

1678: (\atone AC)

1679: \left|

1680: ((\atone AB)\land \attwo(H\lor T))

1681: \lor

1682: ((\atone BC)\land \attwo H)

1683: \right.\right),

1684: \end{equation}

1685: 

1686: where $\atone\alpha$ is $\PDIA(\lnot\PREV\TRUE\land \alpha)$ and

1687: $\attwo\alpha$ is $\PDIA(\PREV\TRUE\land \lnot\PREV\PREV\TRUE\land

1688: \alpha),$ and express that $\alpha$ is true at time $1$ and $2$,

1689: respectively.

1690: 

1691: 

1692: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]

1693: \[\UseTips

1694: \xymatrix @C=20mm

1695: {

1696: &&&*+++[o][F]{1}

1697: \ar@(ur,dr)[]

1698: \\

1699: &&*+++[o][F]{{\bot}}

1700: \ar[ur]^{\textstyle{H\lor T}}

1701: &*+++[o][F]{{0}}

1702: { \ar@(ur,dr)[]}

1703: \\

1704: {\ar[r]}

1705: &*+++[o][F]{{\bot}}

1706: \ar@/^/[ur]|{\textstyle{AB}}

1707: \ar[r]|{\textstyle{BC}}

1708: \ar@/_/[dr]|{\textstyle{AC}}

1709: &*+++[o][F]{{\bot}}

1710: \ar[ur]|(.3){\textstyle{H}}

1711: \ar[dr]|{\textstyle{T}}

1712: \\

1713: &&*+++[o][F]{{\bot}}

1714: \ar@/_/[r]_{\textstyle{H\lor T}}

1715: &*+++[o][F]{{\bot}}

1716: \ar@(ur,dr)[]

1717: }

1718: \]

1719: \caption[]{Moore machine of \eqref{3prisRR}. It is the minimalization

1720: of the Moore machine from Fig.\ \ref{f7}, so they are indeed logically

1721: indistinguishable.}

1722: \label{f3prisRR}

1723: \end{figure}

1724: 

1725: The general conclusion is that simple Moore machines can correspond to

1726: complicated $\TT$ formulas, and simple $\TT$ descriptions can yield

1727: complicated Moore machines. If we additionally take into account that

1728: it is hard to expect that any computer program will be ever able to

1729: transform human-readable representations of one kind into

1730: human-readable representations of the other kind\footnote{In both

1731: cases even graphical layout can have a huge impact on the readability

1732: of the model!}, we recommend that the whole process of modelling is

1733: done using only one of the formalisms, without mixing them.

1734:  

1735: \subsection{Algorithm for calculating the probability}\label{algorytmy}

1736: 

1737: 

1738: Of course, the natural method to compute probability of a given

1739: regular conditional $c$ in our model is to refer to an underlying

1740: Markov chain $\X,$ perform the computations there, and then use the

1741: formula

1742: 

1743: \[\Pr(c)=\frac{\sum_{i:h(i)=1}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(X_n=i)}

1744: {\sum_{i:h(i)=1~\text{or}~0}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(X_n=i)},

1745: \]

1746: 

1747: which follows directly from the Bayes' Formula.

1748: 

1749: The calculation of $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(X_n=i)$ is generally known to

1750: be polynomial time in the number of states of the Markov chain,

1751: assuming unit cost of arithmetical operations \cite{KS}. The book

1752: \cite{stewart} contains the account of state-of-the-art algorithms

1753: for numerical calculations of the limiting probabilities.

1754: 

1755: As an example we calculate here the probability of the formula

1756: \eqref{3pris}, using the simplest possible approach, assuming that all

1757: the events from $\Omega$ have nonzero probability.

1758: 

1759: 

1760: We assume the following numbering of the states of the Markov chain

1761: from Fig.\ \ref{f9}:

1762: 

1763: 

1764: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]

1765: \[

1766: \xymatrix @R=0mm @C=0mm

1767: {

1768: &&*+++[o][F]{3}

1769: &&*+++[o][F]{5}

1770: \\

1771: &*+++[o][F]{1}

1772: &&&&*+++[o][F]{4}

1773: \\

1774: *+++[o][F]{2}

1775: &&&&&&*+++[o][F]{6}

1776: \\

1777: &*+++[o][F]{8}

1778: &&*+++[o][F]{7}

1779: &&*+++[o][F]{9}

1780: }

1781: \]

1782: \caption[]{Numbering of the states of Markov chain resulting from the

1783: Moore machine in Fig.\ \ref{f9}.}\label{f10}

1784: \end{figure}

1785: 

1786: 

1787: Then the matrix $\Pi$ of transition probabilities is

1788: \[

1789: \begin{bmatrix} 

1790: \bar{AB}& 0& 0& 

1791: \bar{BC}&0 & 0&

1792: \bar{AC}&0 & 0\\

1793: \bar{AB}& 0& 0& 

1794: \bar{BC}&0 & 0&

1795: \bar{AC}&0 & 0\\

1796: \bar{AB}& 0& 0& 

1797: \bar{BC}&0 & 0&

1798: \bar{AC}&0 & 0

1799:  \\ 

1800: 0& \bar{AB}\,\bar{H}& \bar{AB}\,\bar{T}&

1801: 0& \bar{BC}\,\bar{H}& \bar{BC}\,\bar{T}&

1802: 0& \bar{AC}\,\bar{H}& \bar{AC}\,\bar{T}\\

1803: 0& \bar{AB}\,\bar{H}& \bar{AB}\,\bar{T}&

1804: 0& \bar{BC}\,\bar{H}& \bar{BC}\,\bar{T}&

1805: 0& \bar{AC}\,\bar{H}& \bar{AC}\,\bar{T}\\

1806: 0& \bar{AB}\,\bar{H}& \bar{AB}\,\bar{T}&

1807: 0& \bar{BC}\,\bar{H}& \bar{BC}\,\bar{T}&

1808: 0& \bar{AC}\,\bar{H}& \bar{AC}\,\bar{T}

1809:  \\ 

1810: 0& 0& \bar{AB}&

1811: 0& 0& \bar{BC}&

1812: 0& 0& \bar{AC}\\

1813: 0& 0& \bar{AB}&

1814: 0& 0& \bar{BC}&

1815: 0& 0& \bar{AC}\\

1816: 0& 0& \bar{AB}&

1817: 0& 0& \bar{BC}&

1818: 0& 0& \bar{AC}

1819:       \end{bmatrix}

1820: \]

1821: where $\bar{AB}$ stands for $\pr(AB),$ and similarly for arguments

1822: $BC, AC, H,T$ (the matrix does not fit into the page when the standard

1823: notation is used).

1824: 

1825: It can be directly checked that the square of this matrix has all

1826: entries positive, hence the whole represents a single ergodic

1827: class. (This is what breaks down when some elements from $\Omega$ have

1828: probability $0.$ It this is permitted, one has to consider a few more

1829: cases.) It is known that in such cases the limiting probability does

1830: not depend on the initial probabilities of getting into this class,

1831: therefore we can ignore the dotted (transient) states from

1832: Fig.~\ref{f9}. The limiting probabilities can be found, given

1833: $\Pi=(p_{ij}),$ by finding the only solution of the system of linear

1834: equations

1835: 

1836: \[\left\{\begin{array}{lcl}

1837: \sum_{i=1}^9x_i&=&1,\\[5pt]

1838: \sum_{i=1}^9p_{i1}x_i&=&x_1,\\[5pt]

1839: \sum_{i=1}^9p_{i2}x_i&=&x_2,\\[5pt]

1840: \cdots&=&\cdots\\[5pt]

1841: \sum_{i=1}^9p_{i9}x_i&=&x_9,

1842:          \end{array}\right.

1843: \]

1844: 

1845: which yields the following unique solution:

1846: 

1847: \begin{align*}

1848: x_1&=\bar{AB}^{2}&

1849: x_2&=\bar{BC}\,\bar{AB}\,\bar{H}&

1850: x_3&= \bar{AB}(1-\bar{AB} - \bar{BC}\,\bar{H})\\

1851: x_4&=\bar{AB}\,\bar{BC}&

1852: x_5&=\bar{BC}^{2}\,\bar{H}&

1853: x_6&= \bar{BC}(1-\bar{AB} -\bar{BC}\,\bar{H})\\

1854: x_7&=\bar{AC}\,\bar{AB}&

1855: x_8&=\bar{BC}\,\bar{AC}\,\bar{H}&

1856: x_9&= 1 - \bar{AB}(1 + \bar{AC} + \bar{BC}\,\bar{H})- \bar{BC} 

1857: \end{align*}

1858: 

1859: and the asymptotic probability of the conditional represented by the

1860: Moore machine in question is $\dfrac{\Pr(AB)}{

1861: \Pr(BC)\Pr(H)+\Pr(AB)},$ as expected. In particular, in the

1862: equiprobable case the value is $2/3.$

1863: 

1864: \section{Related work and possible extensions}

1865: 

1866: 

1867: \subsection{Related work}\label{related}

1868: 

1869: \begin{itemize}

1870: \item

1871: Using temporal logic in reasoning about knowledge is nothing

1872: new. Indeed, many logics of knowledge incorporate temporal operators,

1873: see \cite{Fagin}. However, to the best of our knowledge, $\TT$ is the

1874: very first multi-valued temporal logic to be considered. In

1875: particular, the above mentioned logics of knowledge are two-valued.

1876: Moreover, $\TT$ is the first natural use of past tense temporal logic

1877: in computer science. Most of the established formalisms which use

1878: propositional temporal logic, indeed use its future tense fragment.

1879: 

1880: \item

1881: Computing of conditional probabilities $\Pr(\varphi|\psi)$ is not new,

1882: either, and has been considered by several authors, including

1883: \cite{liogonkii,halp1,halp2}, mostly for first order logic of

1884: unordered structures.

1885: 

1886: 

1887: \item

1888: Finally, Markov chains have already been used for evaluation of

1889: probabilities of logical statements. In particular, our Bayes' Formula

1890: is a simple extension of a theorem of Ehrenfeucht (see \cite{lynch}),

1891: phrased there as a theorem about first order logic of ordered unary

1892: structures (over which first order logic is equally as expressive as

1893: propositional temporal logic, see \cite{Emerson}).

1894: \end{itemize}

1895: 

1896: \subsection{Possible extensions.}

1897: 

1898: \begin{itemize}

1899: \item

1900: $\TT$ is not closed under its own connectives, since the nesting of

1901: the conditioning operator $(\cdot|\cdot)$ with other connectives (let

1902: alone itself) is not allowed, and since the temporal connectives

1903: cannot be applied to a conditional pair. As a consequence, operations

1904: on conditionals are defined by disassembling the pairs and

1905: reassembling them afterwards, to yield a pair in the correct

1906: syntactical form again.

1907: 

1908: We would like to have an equivalent logic with much better syntactical

1909: structure. This should be possible by extending the ideas of

1910: multivalued modal logics, investigated in \cite{mo,fit1,fit2}, by a

1911: multivalued counterparts of $\Since.$ The logic would then assume the

1912: form of a propositional logic with multivalued temporal connectives

1913: and conditioning.

1914: 

1915: The big question is whether one can retain the Bayes' Formula

1916: then. The existing attempts in the present tense logics of

1917: conditionals suggest it might be difficult.

1918: 

1919: \item 

1920: $\TT$ does not match exactly the class of automata, which for any

1921: assignment of probabilities yield a Markov chain with all states

1922: either transient or aperiodic. In such Markov chains all the limiting

1923: probabilities do exist, and thus every such Markov chain can be

1924: meaningfully considered to represent an extended kind of a

1925: conditional. Indeed, below is a simple example of such an automaton.

1926: 

1927: 

1928: \begin{figure}[!hbtp]

1929: \[\UseTips

1930: \xymatrix

1931: {

1932: *++[o][F]{~}

1933: \save[]+<-8mm,-4mm>*{}\ar[]\restore

1934: \ar@(l,u)^a

1935: \ar@/^/[r]^{a^\C}

1936: &*++[o][F]{~}

1937: \ar@(u,r)^{a^\C}

1938: \ar@/^/[d]^{a}

1939: \\

1940: *++[o][F]{~}

1941: \ar@(d,l)^{a^\C}

1942: \ar@/^/[u]^{a}

1943: &*++[o][F]{~}

1944: \ar@(r,d)^{a}

1945: \ar@/^/[l]^{a^\C}

1946: }

1947: \]

1948: \caption[]{It is not hard to verify

1949: that, no matter what probability is assigned to the event $a,$ the

1950: resulting Markov chain has only transient and acyclic states. However,

1951: the automaton is not acyclic, since it has two states, reachable by a

1952: path labelled $aa^\C$ from each other.}

1953: \end{figure}

1954: 

1955: 

1956: We would like to have an extension of $\TT,$ matching exactly the

1957: class of Markov chains with only transient and aperiodic states, to

1958: take the advantage of the maximal class of Markov chains for which the

1959: limiting probabilities exist, and thus all the definitions given in

1960: the paper make sense. We expect the logic to be obtained by extending

1961: the multivalued temporal logic proposed suggested above, rather than

1962: by extending the present syntax.

1963: 

1964: \end{itemize}

1965: 

1966: \paragraph{Acknowledgement.} The first author wishes to thank Igor

1967: Walukiewicz for valuable informations concerning temporal logic.

1968: 

1969: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1970: \newpage

1971: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1972: 

1973: \bibliographystyle{abbrv} \bibliography{bib}

1974: 

1975: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1976: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1977: 

1978: \end{document}

1979: % LocalWords:  cea

1980: 

1981: