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

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

3: 

4: %\RequirePackage[T1]{fontenc}

5: %\RequirePackage[latin2]{inputenc}

6: %\RequirePackage{times}

7: \usepackage{latexsym}

8: \usepackage{amssymb} 

9: \usepackage{amsmath} 

10: \usepackage{amsthm}

11: \usepackage{eucal} 

12: \usepackage{bezier}

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

14: 

15: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

22: 

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

24: \newtheorem{algorithm}{Algorithm}

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

26: 

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

28: \newtheorem*{example}{Example} 

29: \newtheorem*{acknowledgement}{Acknowledgement}

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: %\usepackage{color}

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

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

161: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

163: \title{Embedding Conditional Event Algebras Into  Temporal Calculus

164:     of Conditionals}

165: \author{

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

167: Achim Hoffmann$^2$\\

168: Arthur Ramer$^2$}

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

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

171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

172: %\CompileMatrices

173: \pagestyle{myheadings}

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

175: \begin{document} 

176: \begin{titlepage}

177: \maketitle 

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

179: Banacha 2,\\ 02-097 Warszawa,\\ Poland.\\ E-mail {\tt

180: jty@mimuw.edu.pl}.\\ Supported by the Polish Research Council KBN grant

181: 8 T11C 027 16.\\[5pt] $^2$ School CSE,\\ UNSW,\\ 2052 Sydney,\\

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

183: Supported by the Australian Research Council ARC grant A 49800112

184: (1998--2000).

185: \end{center}

186: \thispagestyle{empty}

187: \end{titlepage}

188: \begin{titlepage}

189: \begin{abstract} In this paper we prove that all the existing {\em

190: conditional event algebras\/} (abbreviated \cea{} in this paper) embed

191: into the three-valued extension $\TT$ of temporal logic of discrete past

192: time, which the authors of this paper have proposed in \cite{TT} as a

193: general model of conditional events.

194: 

195: First of all, we discuss the descriptive incompleteness of the cea's.

196: In this direction, we show that some important notions, like

197: independence of conditional events, cannot be properly addressed in

198: the \cea{} framework, while they can be precisely formulated and

199: analyzed in the $\TT$ setting.

200: 

201: We also demonstrate that the embeddings allow one to use the native

202: $\TT$ algorithms for computing probabilities of complex conditional

203: expressions of the embedded \cea's, and that these algorithms can

204: outperform those previously known.

205: \end{abstract}

206: \end{titlepage}

207: 

208: \begin{titlepage}

209: \tableofcontents 

210: \listoffigures

211: \end{titlepage}

212: 

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

214: 

215: \subsection{The problem of conditional objects}

216: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

223: formulae.

224: 

225: 

226: Computing of conditional probabilities of the form

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

228: understood.  Attempts of defining first the {\em conditional objects\/}

229: of the basic form $X|Y$, and then defining $\Pr(X|Y)$ as $\Pr((X|Y))$

230: were proposed, without much success, by some of the founders of

231: probability \cite{b57,d72}.  They were taken up systematically only

232: about 1980 \cite{a86,l76,es94,g91,gn96}.  The development was slow, both

233: because of logical difficulties --- interpretation of conditionals, and

234: even more because the computational model is difficult to construct.

235: (While $a|b$ appears to stand for a sentence `if $b$ then $a$' and the

236: probability is $\Pr(a|b)=\Pr(a\land b)/\Pr(b)$, there is no obvious

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

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

239: 

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

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

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

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

244: artificial intelligence reasoning.  Formal computational models came in

245: the late 1980's \cite{c87,gnw91} with only one, based on formal

246: fractions and three-valued indicator functions, used for few actual

247: calculations of conditionals and their probabilities.  That model may

248: give results whose values are open to questions \cite{c94}.

249: 

250: The authors of this paper have developed in the companion paper

251: \cite{TT} a temporal calculus $\TT$ of conditionals, based on

252: the early ideas of de Finetti \cite{d72}.

253: 

254: In the present paper we show that all the major previously existing

255: systems of conditionals, the so called {\em conditional event algebras}

256: (see \cite{kniga} or Sect.\ \ref{cea} in the current paper), embed

257: isomorphically into $\TT.$ Looking at them as fragments of $\TT,$ we

258: demonstrate their insufficient expressive power and other defects in

259: their construction.

260: 

261: They attempt to provide certain kind of a model of the logic of

262: conditional expressions, built up from simple conditionals of the form

263: $(a|b)$ with the connectives: conjunction, disjunction and

264: complementation.

265: 

266: However, the semantical objects assigned to the expressions are not

267: required to be of probabilistic nature, so they fail to provide

268: methods to verify the chosen structure experimentally.

269: 

270: The structure of conditionals is not determined functorially by the

271: space of nonconditional  events. 

272: 

273: Moreover, very restricted setting of \cea's does not allow one to

274: address many important questions, like stochastic independence of

275: complex conditionals. In the $\TT$ setting independence can be precisely

276: defined and analyzed, unlike in the \cea\ formalism, (cf.\ Theorem

277: \ref{PS-indep} below).

278: 

279: Finally, we use the  algorithms for calculating probabilities

280: in $\TT,$ which stem from the highly developed algorithms for

281: calculating limiting probabilities in Markov chains, and apply them to

282: the embedded \cea's. It appears that these algorithms clearly

283: outperform the previously known ones for the important {\em product

284: space} \cea{} \cite{g94}.

285: 

286: Consequently, we believe that our $\TT$ can be used as a single

287: alternative to each of the major \cea's considered in the literature so

288: far, superior to each of them,  in the sense of expressive power,

289: clarity of logical and semantical structure, and, last but not least,

290: availability of efficient algorithms.

291: 

292: \section{The tools}

293: \subsection{$\TT$, Moore machines and Markov chains}

294: 

295: We describe briefly the construction of temporal conditionals,

296: presented in detail in \cite{TT}.

297: 

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

299: $\Sigma$ be the Boolean algebra generated by $\E,$ and $\Omega$ the set

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

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

302: $\E.$ Any element of $\Sigma$ will be considered as an event, and, in

303: particular, $\E\subseteq\Sigma.$

304: 

305: The union, intersection and complementation in $\Sigma$ are denoted by

306: $a\cup b,\ a\cap b$ and $a^\C,$ respectively. The least and greatest

307: elements of $\Sigma$ are denoted $\varnothing$ and $\Omega,$

308: respectively. However, sometimes we use a more compact notation,

309: replacing $\cap$ by a juxtaposition. When we turn to logic, it is

310: customary to use yet another notation: $a\lor b,\ a\land b$ and $\lnot

311: a,$ respectively. In this situation $\Omega$ appears as $\TRUE$ and

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

313: incidentally used, as well.

314: 

315: $\trzy =\{0,1,\bot\}$ is the set of truth values, interpreted as {\em

316: true}, {\em false\/} and {\em undefined}, respectively.  The subset of

317: $\trzy $ consisting of $0$ and $1$ will be denoted $\dwa.$

318: 

319: \bigskip

320: 

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

322: called $\TL.$ 

323: 

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

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

326: are closed under the following formula formation rules:

327: 

328: \begin{enumerate}

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

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

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

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

333: and $\lor,$ as usual.

334: 

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

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

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

338: \end{enumerate}

339: 

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

341: states, each state being a function from $\E$ (the same set of basic

342: events as before) to the boolean values $\{0,1\}.$ Note that a state

343: can be therefore understood as an atomic event from $\Omega,$ and $\M$

344: can be thought of as a word from $\Omega^+.$ The states of $\M$ are

345: ordered by $\leq,$ and $s+1$ denotes the successor state of $s.$ We

346: adopt the convention that, unless explicitly indicated otherwise, a

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

348: of a model.

349: 

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

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

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

353: 

354: \begin{enumerate}

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

356: \item

357: \begin{align*}

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

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

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

361: \end{align*}

362: 

363: 

364: \item

365: \begin{align*}

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

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

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

369: \end{align*}

370: \end{enumerate}

371: 

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

373: common use in $\TL.$ They are defined by $\PDIA\varphi\equiv\TRUE

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

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

376: the past $\varphi$''.

377:  

378: Their semantics is then equivalent to

379: \begin{align*}

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

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

382: \end{align*}

383: 

384: \begin{theorem}[see \cite{Emerson}]\label{Emerson}

385: The set of valid $\TL$ formulas is complete in $\PSPACE.$ The set of

386: valid $\TL$ formulas with $\PBOX$ and $\PDIA$ as the only temporal

387: connectives is complete in $\coNP.$

388: \end{theorem}

389: 

390: $\TT$ is the logic of formulas of the form $(\varphi|\psi),$ where

391: $\varphi,\psi\in\TL.$ $\TT$ is a $\trzy$-valued extension of $\TL,$

392: and $(\varphi|\psi)$ is 

393: 

394: \begin{itemize}

395: \item[$1).$] true in $\M,n$ iff $\M,n\models\varphi\land\psi.$

396: \item[$0).$] false in $\M,n$ iff $\M,n\models\lnot\varphi\land\psi.$

397: \item[$\bot).$] undefined in $\M,n$ iff $\M,n\models\lnot\psi.$

398: \end{itemize}

399: 

400: \bigskip

401: 

402: 

403: A {\em $\trzy$-valued Moore machine $\A$} is a five-tuple

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

405: $\Omega$ (the same set of atomic events as before) is the input

406: alphabet, $q_0\in Q$ is the initial state and $\delta: Q

407: \times\Omega\to Q$ is the transition function, and $h$ is the output

408: function $Q\to\trzy.$

409: 

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

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

412: following way: 

413: 

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

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

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

417:                     \end{cases}

418: \]

419: 

420: 

421: 

422: $\A$ computes a function $f_\A:\Omega^+\to \trzy^+$ defined by

423: 

424: \[

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

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

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

428: \]

429: 

430: 

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

432: 

433: We picture $\A$ as a labeled directed graph, whose vertices are

434: elements of $Q,$ labeled by their values under $h,$ the function

435: $\delta$ is represented by directed edges labeled by elements of

436: $\Omega$: the edge labeled by $\omega\in\Omega$ from $q\in Q$ leads

437: to $\delta(q,\omega).$ The initial state is typically indicated by an

438: unlabeled edge ``from nowhere'' to this state.

439: 

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

441: another, we walk in the graph, always choosing the edge labeled by

442: the letter we receive. At each step it reports to the outside world

443: the value $h(q)$ of the state $q$ in which it is at the moment.

444: 

445: Drawing Moore machines, we almost always make certain graphical

446: simplification: we merge all the transitions joining the same pair of

447: states into a single transition, labeled by the union (evaluated in

448: $\Sigma$) of all the labels. Sometimes we go even farther and drop the

449: label altogether from one transition, which means that all the

450: remaining input letters follow this transition.

451: 

452: 

453: It is known for deterministic finite automata \cite{HU}, and extends

454: easily to Moore machines with the same proof, that for any such device

455: there is a unique (up to isomorphism) {\em minimal\/} (with respect to

456: the number of states) device of the same kind, which accepts the same

457: language (computes the same function, respectively).  Moreover, this

458: minimal device can be obtained from any such device as a quotient

459: automaton/machine, i.e., by dividing the state space by some equivalence

460: relation. For details, including a very efficient algorithm to perform

461: minimization, see \cite{HU}.

462: 

463: 

464: \begin{definition}

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

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

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

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

469: \end{definition}

470: 

471: 

472: Sometimes we use an extension of Moore machines---{\em Moore machines

473: with $\epsilon$-moves.} In a deterministic finite automaton an

474: $\epsilon$-move is a transition between two states done without

475: intervention of any letter from the input. By necessity, to maintain

476: the deterministic character of the automaton, an $\epsilon$-move must

477: not be combined with any other transitions starting from the same

478: state. For Moore machines, we adopt the convention that after

479: performing an $\epsilon$-move, no symbol is appended to the output.

480: 

481: E.g., for the Moore machine with $\epsilon$-moves $\A$ below 

482: 

483: 

484: \[\UseTips

485: \xymatrix

486: {

487: {}\ar[r]&

488: *+++[o][F]{\bot}

489: \ar@(dr,dl)[]^{\varrho}

490: \ar[r]^\omega&

491: *+++[o][F]{0}

492: \ar[r]^{\epsilon}&

493: *+++[o][F]{1}

494: \ar@(dr,ur)[]_{\varrho}

495: \ar@/_1cm/[ll]_{\omega}

496: }

497: \]

498: 

499: 

500: we have $f_{\A}(\omega\omega\omega)=0\bot0$ and

501: $f_{\A}(\omega\varrho\omega)=01\bot.$

502: 

503: It is known that any function computable by a Moore machine with

504: $\epsilon$-moves can be computed by a Moore machine without

505: $\epsilon$-moves. Thus using $\epsilon$-moves we do not achieve

506: greater generality. However, some transformations of the machines can

507: be very conveniently represented by introducing $\epsilon$-moves.

508: 

509: 

510: \bigskip

511: 

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

513: stationary transitions and finite state space.}

514: 

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

516: $p:I\times I\to[0,1]$ satisfying \( (\forall i\in I)\qquad\sum_{j\in

517: I}p(i,j)=1, \) the {\em Markov chain\/} with state space $I$ and

518: transitions $p$ is a sequence $\X=X_0,X_1,\dots$ of random variables

519: $X_n:W\to I$, such that

520: 

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

522: 

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

524: probability triple $(W,\fM,\Pr)$ and a sequence $\X$ such that

525: \eqref{M1} is satisfied. $W$ is indeed the space of infinite sequences

526: of ordered pairs of elements from $I,$ and $\Pr$ is a certain product

527: measure on this set.

528: 

529: 

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

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

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

533: called {\em stochastic.}

534: 

535: The initial distribution of $\X$ is that of $X_0,$ which can be

536: conveniently represented by a vector $\Xi_0=(p(i); i\in I).$

537: Its choice  is independent from the function $p(i,j).$

538: 

539: 

540: It follows by a simple calculation that

541: 

542: \begin{equation}\label{MP}

543: \Pr(X_{n+1}=j|X_n=i_n,X_{n-1}=i_{n-1},\dots,X_1=i_1)

544: =\Pr(X_{n+1}=j|X_n=i), 

545: \end{equation}

546: which is called the {\em Markov property.}

547: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

556: 

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

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

559: 

560: 

561: \subsection{Conditional objects and conditional events}

562: 

563: Let for $(\varphi|\psi)\in\TT$ the function

564: $c=c_{(\varphi|\psi)}:\Omega^+\to\trzy$ be defined by

565: 

566: \[c(w)=\begin{cases}1&\text{if $(\varphi|\psi)$ is true in $(w,n)$}\\

567:                     0&\text{if $(\varphi|\psi)$ is false in $(w,n)$}\\

568:                     \bot&\text{if $(\varphi|\psi)$ is undefined in $(w,n)$} 

569:        \end{cases}

570: \]

571: 

572: $\CC$ is the set of all functions $c:\Omega^+\to\trzy$ definable in

573: $\TT,$ and $\CC_+$ is the set of all functions

574: $c_+:\Omega^+\to\trzy^+$ computable by counter-free $\trzy$-valued

575: Moore machines.

576: 

577: $\CC$ and $\CC_+$ are isomorphic under the mapping $\CC_+\ni c_+\mapsto

578: c\in\CC$ defined by 

579: 

580: \[c(w)=\text{last-letter-of}(c_+(w)).\]

581: 

582: The sets $\CC$ and $\CC_+$ are regarded as two representations of {\em

583: conditional objects}. We have yet another representation, denoted

584: $\CC_\infty$: it consists of functions $\Omega^\infty\to\trzy^\infty,$

585: and $c_\infty,$ the third representation of the same conditional, is an

586: infinite sequence of values of $c$ on all finite nonempty prefixes of

587: $w.$

588: 

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

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

591: \bigskip

592: 

593: 

594: \begin{definition}[Conditional event \cite{TT}] Let $c\in \CC$ be a

595: conditional object over $\Omega$ and let $\A$ be any counter-free

596: Moore machine with output function $h,$ computing $c_+.$ Suppose

597: $\Omega$ is endowed with a probability space structure

598: $(\Omega,\fM,\Pr).$ The conditional object $c$ becomes then a sequence

599: $\ce{c}=\ce{c}_1,\ce{c}_2,\dots$ of random variables

600: $\ce{c}_n:\Omega^\infty\to\trzy,$ defined by the formula

601: 

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

603: \ce{c}_n(w)=c(\text{prefix-of-length-$n$-of}(w)),

604: \end{equation}

605: 

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

607: 

608: We call $\ce{c}$ the {\em conditional event\/} associated with $c.$

609: 

610: Moreover, in presence of probability space structure $\A$ becomes a

611: Markov chain $\X(\A)$ (by replacing labels of th e transitions by

612: their probabilities under $\Pr$ in the diagram of $\A$), and then

613: $\ce{c}=h(\X),$ where $h$ is the output function of $\A.$

614: \end{definition}

615: 

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

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

618: probability that at time $n$ the conditional object $c$ is false, and

619: $\Pr(\ce{c}=\bot)$ is the probability that at time $n$ the conditional

620: object $c$ is undefined.

621: 

622: 

623: \begin{definition}[asymptotic probability \cite{TT}]

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

625: conditional event $c\in\CC$ by the formula

626: 

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

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

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

630: \end{equation}

631: 

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

633: 

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

635: 

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

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

638: \end{equation}

639: 

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

641: the limit exists.

642: 

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

644: \end{definition}

645: 

646: \begin{theorem}[Bayes' Formula \cite{TT}]\label{Bayes}

647: 

648: Let $(\varphi|\psi)$ be a conditional object over $\Omega$ endowed

649: with a probability space structure $(\Omega,\fM,\Pr),$ and let $\A$ be

650: any counter-free Moore machine with output function $h,$ computing

651: $(\varphi|\psi).$

652: \begin{enumerate}

653: \item For every state $i$ of $\X(\A)$ the probability

654: $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(X_n=i)$ exists.

655: \item For every  $\star\in\trzy$  the probability

656: $\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{(\varphi|\psi)}_n=\star)$ exists.

657: \item The Bayes' Formula 

658: \end{enumerate}

659: 

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

661: 

662: holds whenever the right-hand-side above is well-defined, i.e., 

663: $\Pr(\psi)>0.$

664: \end{theorem}

665: 

666: \section{Connectives of conditionals}

667: 

668: If we wish to extend the classical two-valued conjunction to

669: conditionals, we are faced with the problem of {\em

670: synchronization}. Indeed, what is easy in $\dwa$-valued world becomes

671: messy in $\trzy $-valued world. The problem is that the conditionals

672: need not become defined synchronously. For the classical conjunction

673: this problem does not exist, because both arguments are always

674: defined. Now we have to resolve the question how to define the

675: conjunction, when some of the arguments are undefined.

676: 

677: 

678: \subsection{Present tense connectives}\label{teraz}

679: 

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

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

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

683: completely characterized by a function $\trzy^n\to\trzy .$ 

684: 

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

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

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

688: conjunction.

689: 

690: \[\label{toto}

691: \begin{array}{ccc}\conn{\land_{\SAC}}00001101& 

692: \conn{\land_{\GNW}}00001\bot0\bot&

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

694: &&\\

695: &{\begin{array}{|c|c|}\hline 

696: \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\lnot x} \\\hline\hline x&\lnot x\\\hline 0&1\\

697: 1&0\\\bot&\bot\\\hline\end{array}}&\\ &&\\\conn{\lor_{\SAC}}01011101&

698: \conn{\lor_{\GNW}}01\bot111\bot1&

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

700: \end{array}\]

701: 

702: 

703: 

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

705: The reduction rules are as follows:

706: 

707: 

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

709: \begin{split}

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

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

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

713: \llnot_0 (a|b)&=(a^\C|b)\\

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

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

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

717: \end{split}

718: \end{equation}

719: 

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

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

722: 

723: \begin{quote}\sl ``One of the most dramatic examples of the unrecognized

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

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

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

727: of two conditionals with uncertainty!''\footnote{NB, if the British had

728: decided to attack from both directions, but not simultaneously, we would

729: have probably discovered temporal conditionals much earlier.}

730: \end{quote}

731: 

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

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

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

735: Calabrese (the author of the quotation).

736: 

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

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

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

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

741: evaluation},  known from programming languages. 

742: 

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

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

745: the {\em strict evaluation}.

746: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

753: choose the other evaluation strategy.

754: 

755: This seems to suggest that neither of the three choices discussed in

756: this paragraph is {\em the\/} conjunction of conditionals. There are

757: indeed many possible choices, and all of them have their own merits.

758: And indeed already the original system of Schay consisted of five

759: operations:  $\llnot_0,\land_\SAC,\lor_\SAC,\land_\Sch$ and $\lor_\Sch.$

760: Moreover, he was aware that these operations still do not make the

761: algebra functionally complete (even in the narrowed sense, restricted to

762: defining only operations which are undefined for all undefined

763: arguments). And in order to remedy this he suggested to use one of

764: several additional operators, one of them being $\land_\GNW!$ So for him

765: all those operations could coexist in one system.

766: 

767: \paragraph{Present tense re-conditioning}

768: 

769: Calabrese \cite{C90} and Goodman, Nguyen and Walker \cite{gn96} proposed

770: their own extensions of the conditioning operator to $\trzy,$ hence

771: making it available for re-conditioning in $\SAC$ and $\GNW$,

772: respectively.  The definitions are

773: 

774: \[ \conn{|_\SAC}\bot\bot\bot01\bot01\ \ \

775: \conn{|_\GNW}\bot\bot\bot01\bot0\bot\]

776: 

777: 

778: 

779: 

780: \subsection{Past tense connectives} 

781: 

782: Now we consider connectives, whose definitions refer to the strict

783: past of their arguments. We continue to consider conjunction, which we

784: use as a kind of model example.

785: 

786: 

787: \paragraph{Examples of past tense connectives}

788: 

789: The following are connectives very close to the conjunction and

790: disjunction of the {\em product space\/} \cea\/ introduced in

791: \cite{g94}\footnote{See the discussion on embedding \cea's in our model

792: below.}, defined by the rule: the conjunction is defined and true iff both of

793: its arguments have been defined, and moreover the historically {\em first\/}

794: values of its two arguments have been both $1.$ Otherwise it is defined and

795: false.  Disjunction is defined similarly.  They use the ``Russian roulette''

796: approach to repeating experiments.

797: 

798: In the language of $\TT$ $(a|b)\land_\PS (c|d)$ can  be expressed by

799: 

800: 

801: \begin{equation}\label{land_PS}

802: \left(\left.

803: \begin{array}{c}

804: \PDIA(a\land b\land

805: (\lnot\PREV\PDIA b))\\

806: \land\\

807: \PDIA(c\land d\land

808: (\lnot\PREV\PDIA d))

809: \end{array}

810: \right|

811: \TRUE

812: \right),

813: \end{equation}

814: 

815: and the definition of and $(a|b)\lor_\PS(c|d)$ is similar. They seem

816: complicated, but can be simplified, what we do below, and the Moore

817: machine representations are again much simpler and easier to analyze.

818: 

819: \begin{figure}[!hp]

820: 

821: \[\UseTips

822: \xymatrix  @C=20mm @R=12mm

823: {

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

825: \ar@(ul,ur)[]

826: \ar[d]^{\textstyle{dc^\C}}

827: \ar[rd]^{\textstyle{dc}}\\

828: {}\ar[r]&*+++[o][F]{0}

829: \ar@(u,l)[]

830: \ar[ur]^{\textstyle{ba}}

831: \ar[dr]_{\textstyle{dc}}

832: \ar@<1ex>[r]^(.65){\textstyle{ba^\C}}

833: \ar@<-1ex>[r]_(.65){\textstyle{dc^\C}}

834: \ar@/_3cm/[rr]_{\textstyle{abcd}}

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

836: \ar@(ur,dr)[]

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

838: \ar@(ur,dr)\\

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

840: \ar@(dl,dr)[]

841: \ar[u]_{\textstyle{ba^\C}}

842: \ar[ru]_{\textstyle{ba}}

843: }

844: \]

845: 

846: \caption[PS conjunction]{Moore machine of $\ps{(a|b)\land(c|d)}$}\label{f3}

847: \end{figure}

848: 

849: 

850: To simplify the $\TT$ representation above, let us define

851: $\first(a|b)$ to be  

852: 

853: \begin{equation}\label{first}\first(a|b):=(\PDIA(a\land b\land

854: \lnot\PREV\PDIA b))|\TRUE ).

855: \end{equation}

856: 

857: It is convenient to denote by $\first_\dwa(a|b)$ the first argument of

858: $\first(a|b).$

859: 

860: Then the conjunction can be easily and effectively described as

861: $(\first_\dwa(a|b)\land\first_\dwa(c|d)|\TRUE)$ (where $\land$ is the

862: classical conjunction of temporal logic).

863: 

864: The minimal Moore machine of $\first(a|b)$ is depicted in Fig.\

865: \ref{f4} below. 

866: 

867: 

868: \begin{figure}[!hp]

869: 

870: \[\UseTips

871: \xymatrix @R=4mm

872: {

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

874: \ar@(ur,dr)[]\\

875: {}\ar[r]&*+++[o][F]{0}

876: \ar@(ur,dr)[]^{\textstyle{b^\C}}

877: \ar@/^/[ur]^{\textstyle{ba}}

878: \ar@/_/[dr]_{\textstyle{ba^\C}}\\

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

880: \ar@(ur,dr)[]

881: }

882: \]

883: 

884: \caption[PS simple conditional]{Moore machine of $\ps{(a|b)}=\first(a|b).$}\label{f4}

885: \end{figure}

886: 

887: 

888: 

889: 

890: 

891: \section{Embedding of existing {\em cea\/}'s and their incompleteness}

892: 

893: 

894: In this section we want to discuss the problem of embedding existing

895: \cea's into our model, and on that basis, the problem of defining

896: natural connectives among conditionals in general.

897: 

898: \subsection{Syntax}

899: 

900: We assume the following syntax of the {\em flat conditional

901: expressions}. The set of all such expressions will be denoted $\LL.$

902: 

903: The set of these expressions is the smallest set, containing all {\em

904: simple conditionals\/} of the form $(x|y),$ where $x,y\in\Omega,$ and

905: closed under two-ary (infix) operations $\land,\lor$ and one unary

906: prefix operation $\llnot.$

907: 

908: If we require the closure  under one additional binary operation

909: $(\cdot|\cdot)$ (which shouldn't be mixed up with the

910: parenthesis-bar-parenthesis construction appearing in simple

911: conditionals), we obtain the set of {\em full conditional expressions},

912: denoted $\LL^|.$

913: 

914: \subsection{Conditional event algebras}\label{cea}

915: 

916: 

917: 

918: According to \cite{kniga}, a {\em conditional event algebra\/} (\cea{}

919: in short) over a probability space $(\Omega,\fM,\Pr)$ is a space (but

920: not necessarily a probability space) $(\Omega_o,\fM_o,\Pr_o),$ extending

921: $(\Omega,\fM,\Pr),$ together with a function

922: $(\cdot|\cdot):\fM\times\fM\to\fM_o$ such that 

923: \begin{itemize}

924: \item $\fM_o$ is an algebra of the signature of boolean algebras.

925: \item $(a|b)=(a\cap b|b)$ for all $a,b\in \fM.$

926: \item The subalgebra of $(\Omega_o,\fM_o,\Pr_o)$ consisting of the

927: elements $(a|\Omega)$ is isomorphic to $(\Omega,\fM,\Pr)$ under the

928: bijection $a\mapsto(a|\Omega).$

929: \item $\Pr_o((a|b))=\Pr(a\cap b)/\Pr(b)$ for $a,b\in\fM,\ \Pr(b)>0.$

930: \item Certain equalities hold among the $\Pr_o$-probabilities.

931: \item The $\Pr_o$-probabilities for $\cap,\cup$ and ${}^\C$ of elements

932: of the form $(a_i|b_i)$ for $a_i,b_i\in\fM$ are effectively computable

933: from the set of $\Pr$-probabilities of all the boolean combinations of

934: the elements $a_i,b_i.$

935: \end{itemize}

936: 

937: \paragraph{How we understand \cea's.} It is readily seen, that any

938: particular \cea{} over any $(\Omega,\fM,\Pr)$ can be equivalently

939: considered as a mapping assigning elements of $\fM_o$ and probabilities

940: to flat conditional expressions. In this sense, \cea{} is a kind of a

941: {\em model\/} of a logic, whose syntax are the flat conditional

942: expressions. This is the way we understand \cea's and this is the level

943: on which we will criticize them.

944: 

945: \paragraph{Probabilistic models and \cea's.}

946: 

947: First of all, we do not think that the algebraic structure of a \cea{}

948: is particularly important. The language of flat conditional

949: expressions does not have equality, so what is really crucial are the

950: probabilities.  The algebraic structure can indeed be an obstacle

951: while assigning probabilities (this is perhaps why the authors of the

952: earlier papers devoted so much attention to it), but otherwise we are

953: not so much interested in it.

954: 

955: Next, what a \cea{} assigns to a conditional expression is definitely too

956: little. Apart from an element of $\fM_0$ and probability, an experiment

957: should be determined to verify experimentally the value of the

958: probability. This means, that the objects assigned to conditional

959: expressions should be events in a probabilistic space, i.e., the triple

960: $(\Omega_o,\fM_o,\Pr_o)$ should be indeed a probability space.

961: Moreover, the experiments for simple conditionals $(a|b)$ should

962: correspond to the natural experiments one performs to learn conditional

963: probabilities. In such experiments one can typically measure another

964: probabilistic parameters, like, e.g., the probability that $(a|b)$ is

965: defined. We think such additional parameters should be assigned to

966: compound conditional events, too.  Of course, in the existing algebras

967: we have hints concerning it, hidden in their universes and other details

968: of the constructions, provided by the inventors, but the very definition

969: of a \cea{} does not require the additional parameters to be even defined,

970: let alone to satisfy any reasonable properties. Strictly speaking, the

971: signature of \cea's is too small. In its present shape it permits

972: existence of other, isomorphic algebras, where all the additional

973: information is lost. 

974: 

975:  

976: Last, but not least, in the applications of classical probability theory

977: one often encounters problems in modeling, typically of the following

978: form:  one has an event, whose meaning is completely clear (it is known,

979: when it happens and when it doesn't), but there is a problem of

980: specifying the probability space structure, and sometimes different

981: choices lead to different values for the probability of the same event.

982: In such circumstances one can only experimentally decide which of the

983: models is the correct one. A standard example is the difference between

984: the so called statistics of: Maxwell-Boltzmann, Bose-Einstein and

985: Fermi-Dirac, considered in quantum physics, and the unsuccessful search

986: for any elementary particle, which would satisfy the first statistics,

987: seemingly the most natural one among them (therefore we have bosons and

988: fermions, but we do not have maxwellons in physics) \cite{feller1}. The

989: tremendous success of probability theory in applications seems to

990: suggest this is the right way of creating a mathematical model of a real

991: life situation.  However, the \cea{} offers us another challenge. Even

992: after coming up with the proper model of probability space of

993: unconditional events, one still has a lot of work to choose the right

994: model for conditional events. 

995: 

996: In plain words, it means that the structure modeling conditional events

997: over a given probabilistic space of unconditional events, should be

998: functorial: given the former space, the space of conditional events

999: ought to be uniquely determined. Here the \cea's again fall short of

1000: satisfying this requirement, because there are many known \cea's, and

1001: each of them has its own definition of $(a|b)\land(c|d),$ with its own

1002: probability, and all of them derive their definitions from certain first

1003: principles. The answer is almost obvious --- the signature is too small,

1004: and should consist of many different conjunctions, disjunctions and

1005: negations, and perhaps lots of other connectives, which do not have any

1006: natural counterparts in the nonconditional world.

1007: 

1008: \paragraph{$\TT$ as a solution.}

1009: 

1010: We believe that our system of temporal conditional events addresses all

1011: of the problems we have indicated above.

1012: 

1013: Our conditional events belong to a normal probability space. They are

1014: indeed stochastic processes --- projections of Markov chains, and all

1015: their probabilistic properties (many more than just the bare

1016: probability) can be verified experimentally, 

1017: 

1018: To the contrary, all the \cea's we call present tense in this paper have

1019: a natural representation as algebras of $\trzy $-valued indicator

1020: functions \cite[Chapter 3]{gnw91}.  Recalling that every event from

1021: $\Sigma$ can be equivalently characterized by its $\dwa$-valued {\em

1022: indicator random variable}, which is nothing but the characteristic

1023: function, we should naturally expect that the lifting of $\Pr$ to the

1024: space of $\trzy$-valued indicator functions, should consist of {\em

1025: $\trzy $-valued random variables}, while the definition of a \cea{}

1026: requires just elements of a strange algebra $\fM_o$ and numbers.  In

1027: case of our temporal conditionals, we naturally expect conditionals to

1028: be functions $\Omega^\infty\to \trzy ^\infty,$ and hence the lifting of

1029: $\Pr$ to consist of random functions, which are nothing but {\em

1030: stochastic processes}, the choice we actually have made.  This is the

1031: natural pattern one should follow, and this is where the scalability of

1032: the model is hidden. E.g., nothing could prevent us from considering

1033: continuous time stochastic processes as models of conditional events, if

1034: need be.

1035: 

1036: 

1037: The space of conditional events is uniquely determined by the

1038: probabilistic space of nonconditional events, and has many more natural

1039: connectives than just three. In fact, we are not very original here:

1040: already Schay \cite{MR37:5901} proposed a system with five connectives,

1041: and considered adding even more of them.

1042: 

1043: Finally, to make our argument complete, we consider the major \cea's

1044: below, and show that they embed in our models, in many different

1045: ways. For the product space \cea, we employ the embeddings to

1046: demonstrate that this \cea{} has some further defects. The existence

1047: of multiple embeddings shows that the structure of a \cea's isn't

1048: functorial just because there are many known \cea's, but because the

1049: structure of a \cea{} does not prescribe the way the conditionals

1050: relate to nonconditional events. Additionally, the product space

1051: \cea{} is unable to characterize independence of conditional events by

1052: means of equalities of probabilities.

1053: 

1054: \subsection{Present tense \cea's}

1055: 

1056: 

1057: In our framework, there is a distinctive class of \cea's, which we call

1058: {\em present tense \cea's.} The definitions of their connectives refer

1059: to the present of the process, only, hence the name. Consequently, such

1060: a connective applied to simple conditionals yields simple conditionals,

1061: again.  Among such systems are SAC, proposed independently by Schay

1062: \cite{MR37:5901}, Adams \cite{a86} and Calabrese \cite{c87} (who

1063: extended it by an operator for re-conditioning), and GNW proposed by

1064: Goodman \cite{g87} and Goodman, Nguyen and Walker \cite{gnw91} (later

1065: Goodman and Nguyen \cite{gn96} proposed a re-conditioning operator for

1066: GNW). They assume that all boolean combinations of simple conditional

1067: expressions yield simple conditional expressions again. The definitions

1068: of their connectives are given in Section \ref{teraz}. They do form

1069: \cea's. Equivalently, \cite[Chapter 3]{gnw91}, these algebras can be

1070: characterized as algebras of $\trzy$-valued indicator functions, and

1071: their connectives are then characterized by mappings from certain

1072: Cartesian power of $\trzy$ into $\trzy.$

1073: 

1074: We take the second point of view, and define their semantics as

1075: follows. Our definition assigns to every conditional expression $e$ a

1076: $\trzy$-valued indicator function $\sac{e}$ and $\gnw{e},$ respectively.

1077: For us, indicator functions are nothing else than present tense

1078: conditionals. (Originally these algebras do not involve time.) So, we

1079: give the definition by describing translations

1080: $\sac{\cdot},\gnw{\cdot}:\LL\to\CC.$ We use in the translations present

1081: tense connectives of conditionals defined in \eqref{TLTL}.

1082: 

1083: The definition of SAC:

1084: 

1085: \begin{equation}\label{sac}

1086: \begin{split}

1087: \sac{(a|b)}&=(a|b),\\

1088: \sac{e\land e'}&=\sac{e}\land_\SAC\sac{ e'},\\

1089: \sac{e\lor e'}&=\sac{e}\lor_\SAC\sac{ e'},\\

1090: \sac{\llnot e}&=\llnot_0\sac{e},\\

1091: \sac{(e| e')}&=(\sac{e}|_\SAC\sac{ e'}).

1092: \end{split}

1093: \end{equation}

1094: 

1095: The definition of GNW:

1096: \begin{equation}\label{gnw}

1097: \begin{split}

1098: \gnw{(a|b)}&=(a|b),\\

1099: \gnw{e\land e'}&=\gnw{e}\land_\GNW\gnw{ e'},\\

1100: \gnw{e\lor e'}&=\gnw{e}\lor_\GNW\gnw{ e'},\\

1101: \gnw{\llnot e}&=\llnot_0\gnw{e},\\

1102: \gnw{(e| e')}&=(\gnw{e}|_\GNW\gnw{ e'}).

1103: \end{split}

1104: \end{equation}

1105: 

1106: Given a probability space $(\Omega,\PP(\Omega),\Pr),$ the probability of

1107: a conditional expression $e$ is

1108: $\Pr_\SAC(e)={\Pr(\sac{e}=1)}/{\Pr(\sac{e}\neq \bot)},$ and

1109: similarly $\Pr_\GNW(e)={\Pr(\gnw{e}=1)}/{\Pr(\gnw{e}\neq \bot)},$

1110: provided that the denominators are nonzero.

1111: 

1112: All theses systems are readily seen to embed in our system of

1113: conditionals.  In fact, if one represents them in the form of reduction

1114: rules, as in \eqref{TLTL}, they do even embed syntactically in the $\TT$

1115: logic. They are present tense because they do not contain temporal

1116: connectives.

1117: 

1118: \subsection{Product space \cea}

1119: 

1120: However, there is another \cea, called the {\em product space} \cea,

1121: which is not present tense. In order to analyze it and show that it can

1122: be interpreted in our model, we have to give the definition.

1123: 

1124: 

1125: The semantics is as follows:

1126: 

1127: Beginning with $(\Omega,\fM,\Pr),$ we form its countable power

1128: $\Omega^\infty$ endowed with the product measure. The cylinder

1129: $\underbrace{b\times\dots\times b}_j\times

1130: a\times\Omega\times\Omega\times\cdots\subseteq \Omega^\infty$ for

1131: $a,b\in\Sigma$ is denoted $b^j\times a\times\hat{\Omega}.$

1132: 

1133: Define the semantics function $\ps{\cdot}:\PS\to\PP(\Omega^\infty)$ by

1134: 

1135: 

1136: \begin{align*}

1137: \ps{(a|_\PS b)}&=

1138: \bigcup_{i=0}^\infty (\Omega\setminus b)^j\times (b\cap

1139: a)\times\hat{\Omega},\\

1140: \ps{ e\land  e'}&=\ps{ e}\cap\ps{ e'},\\

1141: \ps{ e\lor  e'}&=\ps{ e}\cup\ps{ e'},\\

1142: \ps{\llnot  e}&=\Omega^\infty\setminus\ps{ e}.

1143: \end{align*}

1144: 

1145: $\fM_o$ of the product space \cea\ is then the subalgebra of the

1146: (boolean) algebra $\langle\PP(\Omega^\infty),\cup,\cap,

1147: (\Omega^\infty\setminus \cdot)\rangle,$ generated by all elements

1148: $b^j\times a\times\hat{\Omega}$ where $a,b\in\Sigma,$ and $\Pr_o$ is the

1149: product measure.

1150: 

1151: There are indeed two versions of $\PS$: one defined in the paper

1152: \cite{g94}, where equality of two conditionals is understood as true

1153: equality of sets, and another, defined in \cite{kniga}, where the

1154: equality of conditionals is understood as {\em equality almost

1155: everywhere}, i.e., two conditional events of $\PS$ are equal iff their

1156: symmetric difference has probability $0$. The latter is therefore not

1157: logical, since it depends on the particular probability space structure.

1158: 

1159: The probabilities assigned to the elements of $\PS$ are those according

1160: to the infinite product of $\Pr.$

1161: 

1162: \subsection{First embedding}\label{FE}

1163: 

1164: In order to construct the first embedding of $\PS$ into $\CC$ by

1165: defining two operations $\ttl{\cdot}:\LL\to\TL$ and

1166: $\ttt{\cdot}:\LL\to\TT$ as follows:

1167: 

1168: \begin{equation}\label{pierwszy}

1169: \begin{split}

1170: \ttl{(a| b)}&=\first_\dwa(a|b)\\

1171: \ttl{e \land e'}&=\ttl{e}\land\ttl{e'}\\

1172: \ttl{e \lor e'}&=\ttl{e}\lor \ttl{e'}\\

1173: \ttl{\llnot e}&=\lnot\ttl{e}\\

1174: \ttt{e}&=(\ttl{e}|\TRUE).

1175: \end{split}

1176: \end{equation}

1177: 

1178: $\ttt{e}$ (or, more formally, the conditional from $\CC$ represented by

1179: the former) is the desired embedding.

1180: 

1181: \begin{lemma}\label{cztery-lematy}

1182: For every expression $e\in\LL$

1183: 

1184: \begin{enumerate}

1185: \item For every word $w\in\Omega^\infty$ holds

1186: $(\ttt{e})_\infty(w)\in\dwa^\infty;$ 

1187: 

1188: \item Suppose $(a_1|b_1),\dots,(a_n|b_n)$ are all simple conditionals

1189: occurring in $e.$ Suppose $w\in\Omega^\infty$ is so that

1190: $b_{i_1},\dots,b_{i_k}$ are all events among $b_1,\dots,b_n$ which

1191: happen in the sequence $w,$ and all of them happen not later than at

1192: time $m.$ Then of the word $(\ttt{e})_\infty(w)$ is constant beginning

1193: since time $m.$

1194: 

1195: \item $\ps{e}=\{w\in\Omega^\infty~/~\text{\rm $(\ttt{e})_\infty(w)$ is

1196: eventually constant 1}\}$;

1197: 

1198: \item  $\Pr_o(e)=\Pr(\ttt{e})$;

1199: \end{enumerate}

1200: \end{lemma}

1201: \begin{proof} The proof of 1., 2.\ and 3.\ goes by simultaneous

1202: induction w.r.t.\ $e.$ For $e=(a| b)$ they follows from

1203: a simple analysis of the definition of $\ps{e}$ and $\first_\dwa(a|b).$

1204: 

1205: 

1206: Now consider $e=\lnot e'$ and assume by induction that 1., 2.\ and 3.\

1207: hold for $e'.$ Since $\ttl{\lnot e}=\lnot\ttl{e'},$ we have 1.\ and 2.\

1208: immediately.

1209: 

1210: Moreover, $(\lnot\ttl{e'}|\TRUE)_\infty(w)$ is eventually constant 1 iff

1211: $(\ttl{e'}|\TRUE)_\infty(w)$ is eventually constant $0,$ which by 1.\

1212: and 2.\ for $e'$ is equivalent to the fact that

1213: $(\ttl{e'}|\TRUE)_\infty(w)$ is not eventually constant 1. This

1214: concludes the induction step of 3.

1215: 

1216: Induction steps for the other connectives are equally simple.

1217: 

1218: We turn now to 4. Suppose $(a_1|b_1),\dots,(a_n|b_n)$ are all simple

1219: conditionals occurring in a conditional expression $\varphi.$ W.l.o.g.\

1220: assume $\Pr(b_i)>0$ for $i=1,\dots, k$ and $\Pr(b_i)=0$ for

1221: $i=k+1,\dots, n.$ (We permit $k=0$ and $k=n,$ in which cases either all

1222: $b_i$ are impossible, or all of them have positive probability.)

1223: 

1224: Represent $\Omega^\infty$ as a disjoint union of sets

1225: 

1226: \[A_n:=\{w\in\Omega^\infty~/~\begin{array}{c}

1227: \text{$b_1,\dots,b_k$ happen in

1228: $w$ and the first time}\\\text{when they all have already happened is

1229: $n$}\end{array}\}\]

1230: 

1231: and the set $A_\infty:=\{w\in\Omega^\infty~/~\text{not all of

1232: $b_1,\dots,b_k$ happen in $w$}\}.$ All these sets are clearly

1233: measurable.

1234: 

1235: It is not hard to see that the (product) probability of

1236: $A_\infty$ is $0,$ so

1237: $\Pr_o(e)=\sum_{\substack{n\in\N\\A_n\subseteq\ps{e}}}

1238: \Pr(A_n).$

1239: 

1240: It is not hard to verify, either, that

1241: 

1242: \[\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{m\in\N} \Pr\nolimits_n(A_m) \ =\ 1.\]

1243: 

1244: These two equalities imply 4.\ immediately, since for every $n$ 

1245: 

1246: \[\sum_{\substack{m\in\N\\A_m\subseteq\ps{e}}}

1247: \Pr\nolimits_n(A_m)\leq \Pr\nolimits_n(\ttt{e})\leq 1-

1248: \sum_{\substack{m\in\N\\A_m\cap\ps{e}=\varnothing}}

1249: \Pr\nolimits_n(A_m).\]

1250: \end{proof}

1251: 

1252: The following theorem follows now instantly.

1253: 

1254: \begin{theorem}\label{zaba} $\ttt{\cdot}$ is an embedding of the $\PS$

1255: \cea{} into $\CC,$ in the sense that for any underlying probability

1256: space, and any conditional expressions $e,e'$,  $\ttt{e}=\ttt{e'}$

1257: iff $\ps{e}=\ps{e'},$ and $\Pr(\ttt{e})=\Pr_o(e).$\qed

1258: \end{theorem}

1259: 

1260: 

1261: \subsection{Reverse embeddings}

1262: 

1263: \begin{definition}

1264: The reverse of a word $w=\omega_1\dots\omega_n\in \Omega^+,$ denoted

1265: $w^{\RR},$ is $\omega_n\omega_{n-1}\dots \omega_1.$

1266: 

1267: Now consider a conditional $c\in\CC.$ Then $c^{\RR}\in\CC$ is a conditional 

1268: defined by 

1269: 

1270: \[c^{\RR}(w):=c(w^{\RR}).\]

1271: \end{definition}

1272: 

1273: The class of languages definable in $\TL$ is reverse-closed

1274: \cite{Emerson}, i.e., if $L=\{w~/~w,|w|\models\varphi\}$ for some

1275: $\varphi\in\TL$, then $L^{\RR}=\{w^{\RR}~/~w\in

1276: L\}=\{w~/~w,|w|\models\psi\}$ for some$\varphi\in\TL$.  It follows

1277: that $c^{\RR}$ is indeed a conditional in our sense.

1278: 

1279: 

1280: 

1281: \begin{theorem}\label{reverse}

1282: For every $\star\in\trzy$

1283: \[

1284: \Pr(\ce{c}_n=\star)=\Pr(\ce{c^{\RR}}_n=\star).

1285: \]

1286: 

1287: Consequently, $\Pr_o(c)=\Pr(c^\RR).$

1288: \end{theorem}

1289: \begin{proof}

1290: $\Pr$ is understood here as a product measure, which is insensitive to

1291: the order of its coordinates.

1292: \end{proof}

1293: 

1294: 

1295: 

1296: 

1297: It follows that any \cea, which can be at all isomorphically embedded

1298: in our stochastic process model, has at least {\em two\/} embeddings,

1299: which are reverses of each other. The only exception is when the

1300: embedding is invariant under reverse, i.e., when each conditional $c$

1301: in the image of the embedding satisfies $c(w)=c(w^\RR)$ for all

1302: $w\in\Omega^+.$ However, it seems unlikely that any reasonable

1303: embedding has this property. In particular, the natural embeddings of

1304: the \cea's we consider here are not of this kind.

1305: 

1306: As a matter of example, we consider here $\PS$.  For the $\PS$

1307: conjunction, its informal description of its reverse representation in

1308: $\CC$ is that it is always defined and true iff the most recent defined

1309: values of its both arguments were $1.$ 

1310: 

1311: 

1312: In $\TT,$ we have that $\ttr{(a|b)\land(c|d)}$ (the reverse of the

1313: embedding $\ttt{\cdot}$ defined in \eqref{pierwszy}) is defined by

1314: $((b^\C\Since (a\land b))\land(d^\C\Since (c\land d))|\TRUE),$ whose

1315: Moore machine is depicted below.

1316: 

1317: 

1318: \begin{figure}[!hbp]

1319: 

1320: \[\UseTips

1321: \xymatrix @C=16mm @R=36mm

1322: {

1323: &&*+++[o][F-]{0}

1324: \ar@(ul,ur)

1325: \ar@<2ex>[dll]|(.36){c^\C d\land (ab)^\C}

1326: \ar@<2ex>[ddl]|(.36){abc^\C d}

1327: \ar@<2ex>[dr]|(.36){ab\land (c^\C d)^\C}

1328: \\

1329: *+++[o][F-]{0}

1330: \ar@(l,u)

1331: \ar@<2ex>[rrr]|(.36){abcd}

1332: \ar@<2ex>[rru]|(.36){cd\land (ab)^\C}

1333: \ar@<2ex>[dr]|(.36){ab\land (cd)^\C}

1334: &&&*+++[o][F-]{1}

1335: \ar@(ur,dr)

1336: \ar@<2ex>[lll]|(.36){a^\C bc^\C d}

1337: \ar@<2ex>[lld]|(.36){c^\C d\land (a^\C b)^\C}

1338: \ar@<2ex>[lu]|(.36){a^\C b\land (c^\C d)^\C}

1339: \\

1340: {}\save[]+<-2cm,3cm>\ar[u]\restore %strzalka rozpoczynajaca rysunek

1341: &*+++[o][F-]{0}

1342: \ar@(rd,dl)

1343: \ar@<2ex>[rru]|(.36){cd\land(a^\C b)^\C}

1344: \ar@<2ex>[uur]|(.36){a^\C bcd}

1345: \ar@<2ex>[ul]|(.36){a^\C b\land (ab)^\C}

1346: }

1347: \]

1348: 

1349: \caption[Reverse conjunction]{Moore machine of $\ttr{(a|b)\land(c|d)}.$}

1350: \end{figure}

1351: 

1352: 

1353: The precise definition of the reverse embedding of $\PS$ is as follows:

1354: first, we take the original conditional expression

1355: $e=e((a_1|b_1),\dots,(a_m|b_m))$ and replace every $(a_i|b_i)$ occurring

1356: in it by $b_i^\C\Since (a_i\land b_i),$ obtaining $e'\in \TL,$ and then define

1357: $\ttr{e}:=(e'|\TRUE).$ Formally:

1358: 

1359: 

1360: \begin{equation}\label{drugi}

1361: \begin{split}

1362: \ttlr{(a| b)}&=b^\C\Since(a\land b)\\

1363: \ttlr{e \land e'}&=\ttlr{e}\land\ttlr{e'}\\

1364: \ttlr{e \lor e'}&=\ttlr{e}\lor \ttlr{e'}\\

1365: \ttlr{\llnot e}&=\lnot\ttlr{e}\\

1366: \ttr{e}&=(\ttlr{e}|\TRUE).

1367: \end{split}

1368: \end{equation}

1369: 

1370: 

1371: For this particular embedding, we have the following consequence of

1372: Theorem \ref{reverse} (and the simple fact that reversing is an

1373: automorphism of the whole $\TT$)

1374: 

1375: \begin{theorem}\label{dwie-zaby} $\ttr{\cdot}$ is an embedding of

1376: the $\PS$ \cea{} into $\CC,$ in the sense that for any underlying

1377: probability space, and any conditional expressions $e,e'$,

1378: $\ttr{e}=\ttr{e'}$ iff $\ps{e}=\ps{e'},$ and

1379: $\Pr(\ttr{e})=\Pr_o(e).$\qed

1380: \end{theorem}

1381: 

1382: 

1383: \subsection{Sparse reverse embedding}

1384: 

1385: We give a new, radically different interpretation of $\PS$ in $\CC.$ The

1386: main difference is that it is not an embedding. We are going to present

1387: a way to interpret $\PS$ expressions in $\CC$ so that, for any

1388: probability space $(\Omega,\PP(\Omega),\Pr),$ the $\Pr_o$-probability of

1389: a $\PS$-expression is equal to the asymptotic probability of its

1390: interpretation. However, expressions which yield equal element of the

1391: $\PS$ \cea, may well give distinct conditional events in $\CC,$

1392: although, as said before, these expressions will have equal asymptotic

1393: probabilities.

1394: 

1395: First of all , we redefine the meaning of simple conditionals $(a|b).$

1396: According to the new embedding, they are represented by $\TT$ formula

1397: 

1398: \[(a\land\lnot(\PBOX\lnot b\,\lor\,\lnot\PREV\TRUE)|b\lor \lnot\PDIA

1399: b).\]

1400: 

1401: Denote this formula by $(a|_Sb).$ 

1402: 

1403: It is essentially the simple conditional $(a|b)\in\TT,$ except that it

1404: is defined and false until $b$ becomes true for the very first time, and

1405: since then behaves exactly like $(a|b)$ does in $\TT$.  The manipulation

1406: is necessary to accommodate the $\PS$ principle, that degenerate simple

1407: conditionals, like $(a|0),$ do have probability, and that it is $0.$

1408: 

1409: 

1410: We now define the sparse reverse interpretation of $\PS$ in $\CC$ as

1411: follows:  First, we take the original conditional expression

1412: $e=e((a_1|b_1),\dots,(a_m|b_m))$ and set

1413: $\ttrs{e}=(\ttlr{e}|\Lor_{i=1}^m(b_i\lor \lnot\PDIA b_i)),$ where

1414: $\ttlr{\cdot}$ has been defined in \eqref{drugi}.

1415: 

1416: The conjunction and disjunction are defined precisely when at least

1417: one of the arguments is defined, so they resemble the connectives of

1418: $\SAC$ in this respect, but instead of assigning the other arguments

1419: default values when they are undefined, like $\SAC$ does, their most

1420: recent defined values are always used, instead.  Here is an example

1421: Moore machine, in which we use $\epsilon$-moves. The graphical

1422: representation in Fig. \ref{f00} and Fig. \ref{f0} shows that the new

1423: operation is closely related to the reversed product space

1424: conjunction, as can be expected from the shape of the $\TT$

1425: representation.

1426: 

1427: 

1428: \begin{figure}[htp]

1429: 

1430: \[

1431: \xymatrix  @C=16mm @R=36mm

1432: {

1433: &&*+++[o][F]{0_{1\bot}}

1434: \ar@(ur,ul)[]

1435: \ar[r]_{a^\C bd^\C}

1436: &*+++[o][F]{0_{0\bot}}

1437: \ar@(ur,ul)[]

1438: \ar@<-2ex>[l]_{abd^\C}

1439: \\

1440: {}\ar[r]&*+++[o][F]{0_{\bot\bot}}

1441: \ar@(ul,u)[]

1442: \ar[ur]|{abd^\C}

1443: \ar[urr]|{a^\C bd^\C}

1444: \ar[dr]|{b^\C cd}

1445: \ar[drr]|{b^\C b^\C d}

1446: \\

1447: &&*+++[o][F]{0_{\bot1}}

1448: \ar@(dr,dl)[]

1449: \ar[r]^{b^\C c^\C d}

1450: &*+++[o][F]{0_{\bot0}}

1451: \ar@(dr,dl)[]

1452: \ar@<2ex>[l]^{b^\C cd}

1453: }

1454: \]

1455: 

1456: \caption[Sparse reverse conjunction 1.]{Moore machine of

1457: $\ttrs{(a|b)\land(c|d)},$ part 1. This part of the machine is the

1458: transient part of the Markov chain, when $\Pr(b),\Pr(d)>0$ (Lemma

1459: \ref{12}) and the whole reachable part when at least one of these

1460: probabilities is $0$ (Lemma \ref{11}).\\ Subscripts of the state

1461: labels indicate the most recent value of $(a|b)$ and $(c|d),$

1462: respectively.}\label{f00}

1463: \end{figure}

1464: 

1465: 

1466: \begin{figure}[htp]

1467: 

1468: \[\UseTips

1469: \xymatrix @C=16mm @R=36mm

1470: {

1471: {}\save[]+<0cm,-18mm>*+++[o][F-]{\bot}

1472: \ar@/^/[d]^{\epsilon}

1473: \ar@/_/@{<-}[d]_{b^\C d^\C}

1474: \restore

1475: &&*+++[o][F-]{0_{01}}

1476: \ar@(ul,ur)

1477: \ar@<2ex>[dll]|(.36){c^\C d\land (ab)^\C}

1478: \ar@<2ex>[ddl]|(.36){abc^\C d}

1479: \ar@<2ex>[dr]|(.36){ab\land (c^\C d)^\C}

1480: \ar@/^/[r]^{b^\C d^\C}

1481: &*+++[o][F-]{\bot}

1482: \ar@/^/[l]^{\epsilon}

1483: \\

1484: *+++[o][F-]{0_{00}}

1485: \ar@(l,ul)

1486: \ar@<2ex>[rrr]|(.36){abcd}

1487: \ar@<2ex>[rru]|(.36){cd\land (ab)^\C}

1488: \ar@<2ex>[dr]|(.36){ab\land (cd)^\C}

1489: &&&*+++[o][F-]{1_{11}}

1490: \ar@(ur,r)

1491: \ar@<2ex>[lll]|(.36){a^\C bc^\C d}

1492: \ar@<2ex>[lld]|(.36){c^\C d\land (a^\C b)^\C}

1493: \ar@<2ex>[lu]|(.36){a^\C b\land (c^\C d)^\C}

1494: \\

1495: *+++[o][F-]{\bot}

1496: \ar@/_/[r]_{\epsilon}

1497: %\save[]+<-2cm,3cm>\ar[u]\restore %strzalka rozpoczynajaca rysunek

1498: &*+++[o][F-]{0_{10}}

1499: \ar@(rd,dl)

1500: \ar@<2ex>[rru]|(.36){cd\land(a^\C b)^\C}

1501: \ar@<2ex>[uur]|(.36){a^\C bcd}

1502: \ar@<2ex>[ul]|(.36){a^\C b\land (ab)^\C}

1503: \ar@/_/[l]_{b^\C d^\C} &

1504: &{}\save[]+<0cm,18mm>*+++[o][F-]{\bot}

1505: \ar@/^/[u]^{\epsilon}

1506: \ar@/_/@{<-}[u]_{b^\C d^\C}

1507: \restore

1508: }

1509: \]

1510: 

1511: \caption[Sparse reverse conjunction 2.]{Moore machine of $\ttrs{(a|b)\land(c|d)},$ part 2. This part

1512: of the machine is the (only) ergodic class of the Markov chain, when

1513: $\Pr(b),\Pr(d)>0$ (Lemma \ref{12}), and is unreachable  when at

1514: least one of these probabilities is $0$ (Lemma \ref{11}).\\ Subscripts

1515: of the state labels indicate the most recent value of $(a|b)$ and

1516: $(c|d),$ respectively.} \label{f0}

1517: \end{figure}

1518: 

1519: \begin{figure}[htp]

1520: \[

1521: \begin{array}{|c|c|c|}

1522: \hline

1523: \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{\text{Missing arrows}}\\

1524: \hline\hline

1525: \text{From}&\text{To}&\text{Label}\\

1526: \hline

1527: 0_{\bot\bot},0_{\bot0},0_{\bot1},0_{1\bot},0_{0\bot}&0_{00}&a^\C bc^\C d

1528: \\

1529: \hline

1530: 0_{\bot\bot},0_{\bot0},0_{\bot1},0_{1\bot},0_{0\bot}&0_{01}&a^\C bcd

1531: \\

1532: \hline

1533: 0_{\bot\bot},0_{\bot0},0_{\bot1},0_{1\bot},0_{0\bot}&0_{10}&abc^\C d

1534: \\

1535: \hline

1536: 0_{\bot\bot},0_{\bot0},0_{\bot1},0_{1\bot},0_{0\bot}&1_{11}&abcd

1537: \\

1538: \hline

1539: 0_{1\bot}&1_{11}&b^\C cd

1540: \\

1541: \hline

1542: 0_{0\bot}&0_{01}&b^\C cd

1543: \\

1544: \hline

1545: 0_{1\bot}&0_{10}&b^\C c^\C d

1546: \\

1547: \hline

1548: 0_{0\bot}&0_{00}&b^\C c^\C d

1549: \\

1550: \hline

1551: 0_{\bot1}&1_{11}&abd^\C

1552: \\

1553: \hline

1554: 0_{\bot0}&0_{10}&abd^\C

1555: \\

1556: \hline

1557: 0_{\bot1}&0_{01}&a^\C bd^\C

1558: \\

1559: \hline

1560: 0_{\bot0}&0_{00}&a^\C bd^\C\\

1561: \hline

1562: \end{array}

1563: \]

1564: \caption[Sparse reverse conjunction 3.]{Moore machine of $\ttrs{(a|b)\land(c|d)},$ part 3. This part

1565: of the machine is the table of the transitions from the ``transient''

1566: part (Fig.~\ref{f00}) to the ``ergodic'' part

1567: (Fig.~\ref{f0}).}\label{f000}

1568: \end{figure}

1569: 

1570: 

1571: \begin{lemma}\label{11}

1572: If $\Pr(b_i)=0$ for at least one $1\leq i\leq m,$ then

1573: $\Pr(\ttrs{e})=\Pr(\ttt{e}).$

1574: \end{lemma}

1575: \begin{proof} In this case, assuming $\Pr(b_i)=0$, we have that

1576: $\Lor_{i=1}^m(b_i\lor \lnot\PDIA b_i))$ is true with probability $1,$

1577: hence $\ce{\ttrs{e}}=\ce{\ttr{e}}$ with probability $1.$

1578: Now the thesis follows immediately from Theorem \ref{dwie-zaby}.

1579: \end{proof}

1580: 

1581: 

1582: \begin{lemma}\label{12} If $\Pr(b_i)>0$ for all $1\leq i\leq m,$ then

1583: $\Pr(\ttrs{e})=\Pr_o(\ttt{e}).$

1584: \end{lemma}

1585: \begin{proof} Let $e=e((a_1|b_1,\dots,(a_n|b_n)).$ We prove

1586: $\Pr(\ttr{e})=\Pr(\ttrs{e}),$ which is, by Theorem

1587: \ref{dwie-zaby}, equivalent to what we have to show.

1588: 

1589: Denote $t=$ the first moment $m$ when all the $b_i$'s have already

1590: been defined.

1591: 

1592: Let us note that, if $t<n,$ then the event

1593: $\ce{\ttrs{e}}_n=\bot$ is independent of the whole history of

1594: $\ce{\ttrs{e}}$ up to time $n-1.$ This is so because the decision

1595: whether $\ce{\ttrs{e}}_n$ is defined or not depends solely on the

1596: present time values of $b_i$'s, and their present time values become

1597: independent of the (strict) past, when the condition

1598: $\Lor_{i=1}^n\lnot\PDIA b_i$ becomes for the first time false,

1599: because it remains then false forever, and the ``given'' part of

1600: $\ttrs{e}$ does not contain any other time modalities.

1601: 

1602: 

1603: Moreover, whenever

1604: $\ce{\ttrs{e}}(\omega_1\dots\omega_n)\neq\bot,$ then in fact

1605: $\ttrs{e}(\omega_1\dots\omega_n)=

1606: \ttr{e}(\omega_1\dots\omega_n),$ which is clear from the

1607: syntactic representation of both conditional objects.

1608: 

1609: 

1610: 

1611: Denote for convenience

1612: 

1613: $q=\Pr(\ce{\ttrs{e}}_n=\bot|t<n)=1-\Pr(\Lor_{i=1}^m b_i)<1,$

1614: as well as and $c=\ttr{e}$ and $c^\S=\ttrs{e}.$

1615: 

1616: Fix $\varepsilon>0.$ Let $M$ be large enough to have $\Pr(t\geq

1617: M)<\varepsilon.$ Let $N$ be a large integer, and let $n$ satisfy

1618: $n-N>M.$

1619: 

1620: We have then by the independence

1621: 

1622: \begin{align*}

1623: \Pr(\ce{c}_n=1)&\geq

1624: \sum_{i=0}^N\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n-i}=1)\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n-i+1}=\bot)

1625: \dots \Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=\bot)-\varepsilon,\\

1626: \Pr(\ce{c}_n=0)&\geq

1627: \sum_{i=0}^N\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n-i}=0)\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n-i+1}=\bot)

1628: \dots \Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=\bot)-\varepsilon,

1629: \end{align*}

1630: 

1631: where the $\varepsilon$ error terms are caused by the event that $t\geq M.$ 

1632: 

1633: Because each of the $\Pr(\dots)$ expressions above tends to a limit as

1634: $n$ approaches infinity, we get 

1635: 

1636: \begin{align*}

1637: \Pr(c)&\geq

1638: \sum_{i=0}^N\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n-i}=1)\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n-i+1}=\bot)

1639: \cdots \Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=\bot)-\varepsilon,\\

1640: &=\sum_{i=0}^N\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=1)\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=\bot)

1641: \cdots \Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=\bot)-\varepsilon\\

1642: &=\sum_{i=0}^N\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=1)(\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=\bot))^i-\varepsilon\\

1643: &=\sum_{i=0}^N\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=1)q^i-\varepsilon\\

1644: &=\frac{1-q^N}{1-q}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=1)-\varepsilon,

1645: \end{align*}

1646: 

1647: and similarly 

1648: 

1649: \[1-\Pr(c)\geq

1650: \frac{1-q^N}{1-q}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=0)-\varepsilon.

1651: \]

1652: 

1653: In the limit $N\to\infty$ both inequalities become

1654: 

1655: \begin{align*}

1656: \Pr(c)&\geq

1657: \frac{1}{1-q}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=1)-\varepsilon\\

1658: 1-\Pr(c)&\geq

1659: \frac{1}{1-q}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=0)-\varepsilon,

1660: \end{align*}

1661: 

1662: hence 

1663: 

1664: \begin{align*}

1665: \Pr(c)&\geq

1666: \frac{1}{1-q}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=1)-\varepsilon\\ 

1667: \Pr(c)&\leq

1668: 1-\frac{1}{1-q}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=0)+\varepsilon\\

1669: &=\frac{1}{1-q}(1-q -\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=0))+\varepsilon\\

1670: &=\frac{1}{1-q}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=1)+\varepsilon,

1671: \end{align*}

1672: 

1673: because

1674: $1=\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=1)+\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=0)+\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=\bot),$

1675: in which  the last term is constant equal $q.$

1676: 

1677: We took an arbitrary $\varepsilon>0,$ therefore  indeed

1678: 

1679: \[

1680: \Pr(c^\S)=\frac{1}{1-q}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=1),

1681: \]

1682: 

1683: and likewise 

1684: 

1685: \[

1686: 1-\Pr(c^\S)=\frac{1}{1-q}\lim_{n\to\infty}\Pr(\ce{c^\S}_{n}=0).

1687: \]

1688: 

1689: {}From the last two equalities the equality $\Pr(c)=\Pr(c^\S)$

1690: follows immediately.

1691: \end{proof}

1692: 

1693: Summing up,

1694: 

1695: \begin{theorem}\label{sparse} For every conditional expression $e$ and

1696: every probability assignment to the elements in $\Omega,$

1697: $\Pr_o(e)=\Pr(\ttrs{e}).$\qed

1698: \end{theorem}

1699: 

1700: The very important consequence of the theorem is the following:

1701: 

1702: \begin{corollary} The formalism of $\PS$ \cea{}, seen as a logic of

1703: conditionals, is unable to determine certain probabilistic

1704: characteristics, other than the asymptotic probability, associated with

1705: stochastic processes.

1706: \end{corollary}

1707: \begin{proof} $\PS$ possesses two interpretations in $\CC,$ one of which

1708: consists entirely of always defined temporal conditionals (the

1709: $\ttt{\cdot}$ embedding), while the second contains conditionals which

1710: are defined with asymptotic probability strictly less than 1 (the

1711: $\ttrs{\cdot}$ interpretation).\end{proof}

1712: 

1713: Another similar example of deficiencies of the $\PS$ \cea{} can be found

1714: below, Theorem \ref{(a|0)}.

1715: 

1716: Let us note that the $\ttrs{\cdot}$ interpretation does not preserve

1717: the algebraic structure of the $\PS$ \cea, in general. Indeed, already

1718: $\ps{(0|a)}=\ps{(0|b)}$, while $\ttrs{(0|a)}=(a|_Sb)$ and

1719: $\ttrs{(0|b)}=(0|_Sb)$ represent different conditional objects, for

1720: $a\neq b,$ $a,b\in\E.$

1721: 

1722: \section{Advantages of $\TT$ conditionals}

1723: 

1724: \subsection{Complexity and proof systems}

1725: 

1726: The paper \cite{g94} asks for the proof systems for various

1727: three-valued logics, appearing in the context of the theory of

1728: conditionals. 

1729: 

1730: In order to discuss this issue, we use the machinery of complexity

1731: theory. All the necessary definitions can be found in \cite{HU}.

1732: 

1733: As we prove below, for all of the major \cea's, the sets of weak

1734: tautologies are $\coNP$ complete.

1735: 

1736: In the light of the above results, there is a little hope for a

1737: practically useful proof system for the most prominent systems among

1738: $\GNW$ and $\SAC.$ Indeed, unless $\NP=\coNP,$ a very unlikely

1739: complexity-theoretic collapse, for {\em every\/} sound and complete

1740: proof system for the two above logics, there must be weak tautologies of

1741: length $n$ such that their shortest proofs are of superpolynomial length

1742: w.r.t.\ $n,$ for infinitely many $n.$ 

1743: 

1744: Temporal logic is known to be $\PSPACE$-complete, Theorem \ref{Emerson}.

1745: It is therefore obvious that the set of weak tautologies of $\TT,$

1746: consisting of all expressions $(\varphi|\psi)$ such that for every

1747: $w\in\trzy^+,$ $(\varphi|\psi)(w)\in\{1,\bot\}$ (equivalently: that

1748: $\psi\to\varphi$ is a tautology of $\TL$), is $\PSPACE$-complete, too.

1749: 

1750: Although it is commonly believed that $\coNP\subsetneq\PSPACE,$ from

1751: practical standpoint both admit exponential time algorithms, and no

1752: better ones are known. Consequently, the practical algorithmic

1753: difference between \cea's and $\TT$ is not so crucial. The advantage of

1754: considering \cea's as subsystems of $\TT$ stems from the fact that a lot

1755: is known about proof systems for temporal logic --- unlike for \cea's.

1756: 

1757: 

1758: We are not interested in the complexity of \cea's as logics involving

1759: terms $(a|b)$ as atoms, but rather as $\trzy$-valued logics. To explain

1760: the difference, let us note that in the calculus of any of the \cea's

1761: one can easily restrict atoms to be two-valued (e.g., by using only

1762: atoms of the form $(a|1)$), and thus all the complexity questions

1763: trivialize, the sets of tautologies of all the logics are

1764: $\coNP$-complete.  Here, we assume that the atoms can always assume all

1765: three logical values, and are effectively variables.  Hence we indeed

1766: view our (weak) tautologies as a kind of (weak) meta-tautologies, i.e.,

1767: formulas which evaluate to either $1$ or $\bot,$ no matter what the

1768: arguments are.

1769: 

1770: Formally, for this section we modify $\LL$ and $\LL^|$ replacing simple

1771: conditionals $(a|b)$ by variables $p_1,p_2,\dots$ in conditional

1772: expressions.

1773: 

1774: Likewise, given a valuation $v:\{p_1,p_2,\dots\}\to\trzy,$ we let

1775: $\sac{\cdot}^v$ and $\gnw{\cdot}^v$ assign values in $\trzy$ to

1776: expressions in $\LL^|$. These values are determined by the equations in

1777: \eqref{sac} and \eqref{gnw}.

1778: 

1779: An expression $e$ is a {\em weak tautology\/} of $\SAC$ \cea{} ($\GNW$

1780: \cea, respectively) iff $\sac{e}^v\neq 0$ ($\gnw{e}^v\neq 0,$

1781: respectively) for every $v$.

1782: 

1783: $e$ is a strong tautology of $\SAC$ ($\GNW$, respectively), iff the

1784: above values are 1 for every $v.$

1785: 

1786: We consider the complexity problem of determining if an expression $e$

1787: is a weak tautology according to each of the considered \cea's,

1788: considering also some syntactical restrictions put on the syntactical

1789: shape of $e.$

1790: 

1791: We do not consider strong tautologies, which is explained by the

1792: following.

1793: 

1794: \begin{proposition} In $\GNW$\/ and $\SAC$\/ there are no strong

1795: tautologies.

1796: \end{proposition}

1797: \begin{proof} All connectives  have value $\bot$ if all their arguments

1798: are $\bot,$ for both $\SAC$ and $\GNW.$

1799: \end{proof}

1800: 

1801: Occasionally, we want to consider $\LL^|$ as the syntax of classical

1802: logic. In this case, given a valuation $v:\{p_1,p_2,\dots\}\to\dwa,$ 

1803: the value $\cl{e}^v\in\dwa$ is computed according to the classical

1804: rules, where the conditioning $|$ is understood as reverse implication:

1805: $(a|b)$ is $a\leftarrow b.$

1806: 

1807: \paragraph{Pure conditional parts.}

1808: 

1809: We consider here pure conditional fragments of $\SAC$ and $\GNW,$ i.e.,

1810: expressions in which the only connective used is $|.$

1811: 

1812: It shows that unlimited use of re-conditioning leads to

1813: $\coNP$-completeness of the weak tautology problem.

1814: 

1815: \begin{theorem}\label{pure|} It is an $\coNP$-complete problem to

1816: determine if an expression $e\in\LL^|$ involving only re-conditioning is

1817: a weak tautology of $\SAC.$

1818: 

1819: It is an $\coNP$-complete problem to determine if an expression

1820: $e\in\LL^|$ involving only re-conditioning is a weak tautology of

1821: $\GNW.$

1822: \end{theorem}

1823: \begin{proof}

1824: It is obvious that the sets of weak tautologies in both cases are in

1825: $\coNP.$ So it remains to prove their hardness in this complexity class.

1826: 

1827: It is easily seen that the (re-)conditioning operators of both $\GNW$

1828: and $\SAC$ satisfy the following property: the equivalence relation

1829: $\approx$ on $\trzy $ identifying $1$ with $\bot$ is a congruence of

1830: $\A=\langle\trzy ,{|_\SAC}\rangle$ and $\B=\langle\trzy

1831: ,{|_\GNW}\rangle,$ and the quotient algebras both $\A=\langle\trzy

1832: ,{|_\SAC}\rangle/{\approx}$ and $\B=\langle\trzy

1833: ,{|_\GNW}\rangle/{\approx}$ are isomorphic to the 2-element algebra with

1834: the reversed classical implication $\langle\dwa ,\leftarrow\rangle.$ The

1835: natural epimorphism $\eta_\A:\A\to\langle\dwa ,\leftarrow\rangle$ sends 1 and

1836: $\bot$ to 1, and 0 to 0, and the definition of $\eta_\B$ is identical.

1837: 

1838: Therefore a pure conditional expression is a weak tautology of either of

1839: the considered \cea's iff it is a classical tautology, after its

1840: (re-)conditioning operator is replaced by the reversed classical

1841: implication. The classical formula resulting from this replacement is

1842: denoted $\bar{e}.$

1843: 

1844: We have to prove that $e$ is not a weak  tautology iff $\bar{e}$

1845: is not a tautology. Let $v$ be any valuation of the variables of

1846: $e$ in $\trzy .$ Now we use the natural epimorphism $\eta_\A$

1847: and get

1848: 

1849: \[\cl{\bar{e}}^{\eta_\A\circ v}=\eta_\A(\sac{e}^v).\]

1850: 

1851: So if one of the values above can be $0,$ the other can be, as well,

1852: which establishes the desired equivalence.

1853: 

1854: Since it is known that the tautologies of the classical propositional

1855: logic of pure implication are $\coNP$ complete \cite{H}, the claim

1856: follows. 

1857: \end{proof}

1858: 

1859: As a by-product we have 

1860: 

1861: \begin{corollary} The sets of pure conditional weak tautologies of

1862: $\SAC$\/ and $\GNW$\/ are identical.\qed

1863: \end{corollary}

1864: 

1865: 

1866: \paragraph{Flat parts.}

1867: 

1868: Here we consider $\SAC$ and $\GNW$ without re-conditioning. 

1869: 

1870: We can define the following $\NP$-complete problem 3CNF-SAT.

1871: 

1872: Given: an expression $e\in \LL$ of the following syntactical form:

1873: 

1874: \begin{equation}\label{3CNF-SAT}

1875: e=(\ell_{11}\lor \ell_{12}\lor \ell_{13})\land (\ell_{21}\lor

1876: \ell_{22}\lor \ell_{23})\land \dots\land (\ell_{s1}\lor \ell_{s2}\lor

1877: \ell_{s3}),\end{equation}

1878: 

1879: where each of the $\ell_{ij}$ is either $p_j$ or $\llnot p_j.$

1880: 

1881: The $\NP$-complete problem is: given $e$ of the above shape, determine

1882: if $e$ is satisfiable, i.e, if there exists $v$ such that $\cl{e}^v=1.$

1883: 

1884: It follows that it is $\coNP$-complete to determine, given $e$ as above,

1885: if $e$ is {\em not\/} satisfiable, i.e., whether $\cl{\llnot e}^v=1$ for

1886: every $v.$

1887: 

1888: In order to prove $\coNP$-completeness of the sets of weak tautologies

1889: of either of the \cea's, we have to construct a polynomial time

1890: computable transformation $e\mapsto \bar{e}$ translating $e$ of the form

1891: \eqref{3CNF-SAT} into $\bar{e}$ of the form conforming to the restriction set in

1892: the respective theorem, and such that $\llnot e$ is not satisfiable in the

1893: classical sense iff $\bar{e}$ is a weak tautology of the respective

1894: logic.

1895: 

1896: 

1897: 

1898: \begin{theorem} It is an $\coNP$-complete problem to determine if an

1899: expression $e\in\LL$ is a weak tautology of $\SAC.$

1900: 

1901: It is an $\coNP$-complete problem to determine if an expression

1902: $e\in\LL$ is a weak tautology of $\GNW.$ 

1903: \end{theorem}

1904: 

1905: \begin{proof} It is easily seen that the connectives $\land_\GNW$ and

1906: $\lor_\GNW$ satisfy again the property that the equivalence relation

1907: $\approx$ on $\trzy$ identifying $1$ with $\bot$ is a congruence of the

1908: algebra with the above functions, and the quotient algebra

1909: $\langle\trzy, \land_\GNW,\lor_\GNW\rangle\big/\approx$ is isomorphic to

1910: the classical $\langle\dwa,\land,\lor\rangle.$ This fails about the

1911: negation, however.

1912: 

1913: As the negation is applied to atoms only in 3CNF-SAT, we do not have to use

1914: the negation of $\GNW$ directly.  Instead, we introduce new variables to

1915: denote the negations, and force them to behave correctly outside of the

1916: translation of $e.$

1917: 

1918: Formally, let the mapping $e\mapsto e'$ from the classical propositional

1919: logic into $\GNW$ be defined by replacing unnegated atoms $p$ in $e$ by

1920: $\hat{p}$ and negated atoms $\llnot p$ by $\check{p}.$ Concerning binary

1921: connectives, we leave $\land$ and $\lor$ untouched.

1922: 

1923: Then let $\bar{e}$ be defined as $\llnot(e'\land{\Land\limits_p}

1924: (\hat{p}\lor \check{p})\land(\llnot\hat{p}\lor\llnot \check{p})),$ where

1925: $p$ in the big conjunction ranges over all propositional variables of

1926: $e.$

1927: 

1928: Certainly the mapping $e\mapsto\bar{e}$ is computable in polynomial

1929: time. In order to show the $\coNP$ completeness of the set of

1930: tautologies of $\GNW,$ it suffices to show two implications:

1931: 

1932: \begin{itemize}

1933: \item if $e$ is satisfiable classically, then $\bar{e}$ is not a weak

1934: tautology of $\GNW.$ 

1935: \item if then $\bar{e}$ is not a weak tautology of $\GNW,$ then $e$ is

1936: satisfiable classically.

1937: \end{itemize}

1938: 

1939: For the first item, assume that $e$ is satisfiable, i.e., there is an

1940: assignment $v$ of $0$'s and $1$'s to the propositional variables of $e$

1941: which makes $e$ into $1.$ We construct a $\trzy$-valued assignment $w$

1942: which makes $\bar{e}$ into $0$. If $v(p)=1,$ we let $w(\hat{p})=1$ and

1943: $w(\check{p})=0.$ If $v(p)=0,$ we let $w(\hat{p})=0$ and

1944: $w(\check{p})=1.$ In $e'$ each variable has under $w$ exactly the value

1945: of the corresponding literal in $e$ has under $v.$ So $e'$ evaluates to

1946: $1,$ because connectives in $\GNW$ behave classically for classical

1947: arguments. In addition, each of the formulas $(\hat{p}\lor

1948: \check{p})\land(\llnot\hat{p}\lor\llnot\check{p})$ evaluates to $1,$ so

1949: altogether $\bar{e}$ evaluates to the $\llnot_0$-negation of the value

1950: to which $e'$ does evaluate, which is $0,$ as desired.

1951: 

1952: For the second item, assume there is an assignment $w$ of $0$'s, $1$'s

1953: and $\bot$'s to the propositional variables of $\bar{e}$ which makes it

1954: $0.$ It follows that each of the terms

1955: $(\hat{p}\lor\check{p})\land(\llnot\hat{p}\lor\llnot\check{p})$ must

1956: evaluate to $1$ under $w.$ Therefore of each pair $\hat{p},\check{p},$

1957: one variable must be assigned $1$ and the other $0$ by $w,$ which can be

1958: checked by simple inspection of all possibilities.  Moreover, $e'$ must

1959: evaluate to $1$ under $w,$ which is indeed $\dwa$-valued, by the

1960: previous observation. The connectives of $\GNW$ act classically for

1961: classical arguments, therefore $e$ is indeed classically satisfiable, by

1962: the valuation $v:p\mapsto w(\hat{p}).$ 

1963: 

1964: This finishes the proof.

1965: \end{proof}

1966: 

1967: 

1968: \begin{theorem} The weak flat-conditional $\SAC$ is $\coNP$-complete.

1969: \end{theorem}

1970: \begin{proof} We are going to use the same proof idea as before.

1971: However, we have a small problem. The conjunction of $\SAC$ does not

1972: permit us to deduce, that if a conjunction of two formulas evaluates to

1973: $1,$ so does each of the components.  

1974: 

1975: So instead of the original conjunction, we have to use some custom

1976: connective defined from the conjunction, disjunction and negation, which

1977: will act as a ``good'' conjunction, for which the inference does hold.

1978: It turn out, that the conjunction of $\GNW$ is not definable in $\SAC,$

1979: but there is another connective we can use instead, and which is

1980: definable (we discuss the definability of connectives in $\SAC$ and

1981: $\GNW$ in another paper \cite{SAC-GNW}).  Its definition is as follows: 

1982: \[x\sqcap y\equiv [ x\lor( y\land( x\lor\llnot y))]\land[ y\lor( x\land

1983: (y\lor\llnot x))].\]

1984: 

1985: It is not difficult (but tedious) to check, that $\sac{x\sqcap y}$ has

1986: truth table

1987: 

1988: \[\conn\sqcap00001000,\]

1989: 

1990: 

1991: which is exactly what we need for our purposes. The only subtle point

1992: is that our $x\sqcup y$ is substantially longer than $|x|+|y|.$ Indeed

1993: it is about 4 times longer. We do replace $\land$ by $\sqcap$ in very

1994: long conjunctions. However, if we represent this long conjunction as a

1995: balanced binary (parse) tree, i.e., insert brackets to obtain the

1996: structure

1997: \[(((\ldots\sqcap\ldots)\sqcap(\ldots\sqcap\ldots))\sqcap((\ldots\sqcap\ldots)\sqcap(\ldots\sqcap\ldots))),\]

1998: the depth of nesting of conjunctions is at most log base 2 of the number

1999: $N$ of clauses in the conjunction, and the total increase of length

2000: caused by the replacement is $4^{\text{depth of

2001: nesting}}=4^{\log_2N}=N^2.$ Altogether, the resulting formula, using

2002: $\sqcap$ in place of $\land,$ is still of polynomial size, and can be

2003: easily constructed in polynomial time, as needed.

2004: \end{proof}

2005: 

2006: 

2007: \subsection{Independence of conditional events}

2008: 

2009: There has been a considerable amount of interest in the independence

2010: issue for conditional events, reflected in the \cea{} literature

2011: \cite{g94,c97,p88}. The problem is that typically even for $a$ and $b$

2012: mutually independent of $c$ and $d$ one does not have

2013: $\Pr((a|b)\land(c|d))=\Pr((a|b))\Pr((c|d)).$ The only exception is

2014: $\PS,$ where this equality holds. The other variant of independence:

2015: $\Pr((a|b)|(c|d))=\Pr((a|b))$ is undefined in some formalisms, due to

2016: the lack of re-conditioning operator, and fails in others.  However,

2017: note that in the \cea{} framework one cannot obtain any proper

2018: characterization of independence, because there is no underlying

2019: probabilistic semantics, in which one could say which pairs of

2020: conditionals are independent and which aren't, and then attempt to

2021: characterize this by equalities among probabilities.  One {\em feels\/}

2022: that $(a|b)$ and $(c|d)$ should be independent for mutually independent

2023: arguments, but this is not more than a feeling, and there is no idea

2024: there what might make two conditionals independent when their arguments

2025: are not mutually independent, or when they are composite. 

2026: 

2027: We can address this problem in our semantical setting.  First of all,

2028: for $a$ and $b$ mutually independent of $c$ and $d,$ the stochastic

2029: processes $\ce{(a|b)}$ and $\ce{(c|d)}$ are obviously independent.  And

2030: of course, the {\em independence of the stochastic processes\/} is what

2031: the independence of conditionals should be. This remains true, no matter

2032: which \cea\ we consider. It is, however, a different story if this

2033: independence can be formally characterized in terms of equalities

2034: between probabilities of conditionals in the \cea\ under consideration.

2035: It appears that in the pure \cea{} formalism this cannot be achieved,

2036: because in Theorem \ref{PS-indep} below we show that independence is

2037: undefinable in the $\PS$ \cea.

2038: 

2039: To be precise, the full independence of stochastic processes $\X,\Y$

2040: means that {\em the full histories of both processes\/} are

2041: independent, which is different from the much less restrictive requirement that

2042: just the present time values should be independent. The first version

2043: is formalized by the requirement that $\X_{+,t}$ and $\Y_{+,t}$ are

2044: independent at any time $t>0,$ i.e., for any $w_1\dots w_t,v_1\dots

2045: v_t\in\trzy^t$ holds 

2046: 

2047: \begin{multline*}

2048: \Pr\left(\hspace{-6pt}

2049: \begin{array}{ccc}

2050: X_1=w_1,&\dots,&X_t=w_t\\

2051: Y_1=v_1,&\dots,&Y_t=v_t

2052: \end{array}

2053: \hspace{-6pt}\right)=\\

2054: \Pr(X_1=w_1,\dots,X_t=w_t)\Pr(Y_1=v_1,\dots,Y_t=v_t).

2055: \end{multline*}

2056: 

2057: The weaker, present tense independence requires only that $X_t$ and $Y_{t}$

2058: are independent at any time $t>0,$ i.e., that for any $w,v\in\trzy$ holds

2059: $\Pr(X_t=w,Y_t=v)=\Pr(X_t=w)\Pr(Y_t=v).$ To see the difference it is worth

2060: noting that for {\em any present tense\/} $\TT$ formula $(\varphi|\psi)$ the

2061: processes $\ce{(\varphi|\psi )}$ and $\ce{(\PREV \varphi|\PREV \psi )}$ are

2062: present tense independent, although of course they are easily seen to be

2063: dependent, unless the former is constant.

2064: 

2065: But let us note the following simple fact.

2066: 

2067: \begin{lemma}\label{present-tense} If $c_1$ and $c_2$ are two present

2068: tense conditionals, they are independent iff they are present tense

2069: independent.\qed

2070: \end{lemma}

2071: 

2072: We know now what independence should {\em mean.} It is another story how to

2073: {\em characterize\/} it in terms of the asymptotic probability of

2074: conditionals.

2075: 

2076: First we prove the characterization for present tense independence at fixed

2077: time.

2078: 

2079: Let $\defn (a|b):=(b|\TRUE).$

2080: 

2081: \begin{lemma}\label{indep}

2082: Let $n$ be a fixed time instant. The following  are equivalent:

2083: \begin{itemize}

2084: \item Random variables  $\ce{(a|b)}_n$ and $\ce{(c|d)}_n$ are 

2085: independent.

2086: \item The following four equalities hold:

2087: \begin{align}

2088: \pr_n((a|b)\land_\Sch(c|d))&=\pr_n((a|b))\pr_n((c|d))\label{i1}\\

2089: \pr_n((a|b)\land_\Sch\defn(c|d))&=\pr_n((a|b))\pr_n(\defn(c|d))\label{i2}\\

2090: \pr_n(\defn(a|b)\land_\Sch(c|d))&=\pr_n(\defn(a|b))\pr_n((c|d))\label{i3}\\

2091: \pr_n(\defn(a|b)\land\defn(c|d))&=\pr_n(\defn(a|b))\pr_n(\defn(c|d))\label{i4},

2092: \end{align} 

2093: where we assume an equation to hold in case when both sides are

2094: undefined.

2095: \end{itemize}

2096: \end{lemma}

2097: \begin{proof} 

2098: $\Downarrow$ Independence of random variables $\ce{(a|b)}_n$ and

2099: $\ce{(c|d)}_n$ implies, in particular, that

2100: 

2101: \begin{equation}\tag{$\ref{i4}'$}\label{i4'}

2102: \Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=0,1,\ce{(c|d)}_n=0,1)=

2103: \Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=0,1)\Pr(\ce{(c|d)}_n=0,1),

2104: \end{equation}

2105: 

2106: 

2107: which is exactly equivalent to \eqref{i4}. The other consequences of

2108: independence are equalities

2109: 

2110: \begin{align}

2111: \Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=1,\ce{(c|d)}=1)&=\Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=1)\Pr(\ce{(c|d)}=1)

2112: \tag{$\ref{i1}'$}\label{i1'}\\

2113: \Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=1,\ce{(c|d)}_n=0,1)&=

2114: \Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=1)\Pr(\ce{(c|d)}_n=0,1)

2115: \tag{$\ref{i2}'$}\label{i2'}\\

2116: \Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=0,1,\ce{(c|d)}_n=1)&=

2117: \Pr(\ce{(a|b)}_n=0,1)\Pr(\ce{(c|d)}_n=1),

2118: \tag{$\ref{i3}'$}\label{i3'}

2119: \end{align}

2120: 

2121: which, divided by \eqref{i4'}, yield \eqref{i1}, \eqref{i2} and

2122: \eqref{i3}, respectively. Note that if both sides of \eqref{i4'} are $0,$ then

2123: all the resulting equalities involve an undefined term on both sides, and

2124: hence hold, according to our convention.

2125: \bigskip

2126: 

2127: $\Uparrow$ Let \eqref{i4'} (i.e., \eqref{i4}) hold. If its both sides are $0,$

2128: the random variables $\ce{(a|b)}_n$ and $\ce{(c|d)}_n$ are independent,

2129: because one of them is constant. So let us assume \eqref{i4'} holds and its

2130: both sides are nonzero. In particular, each of the \eqref{i1}, \eqref{i2} and

2131: \eqref{i3} is defined on both sides, because the denominators are everywhere

2132: nonzero.  Multiplying these equalities by \eqref{i4'}, we get \eqref{i1'},

2133: \eqref{i2'} and \eqref{i3'}, respectively. It is now a matter of routine to

2134: prove that the independence of $\ce{(a|b)}_n$ and $\ce{(c|d)}_n$ follows from

2135: \eqref{i1'},

2136: \eqref{i2'} and \eqref{i3'} and \eqref{i4'}.

2137: \end{proof}

2138: 

2139: The lemma allows us to characterize independence for present tense

2140: conditionals.

2141: 

2142: \begin{theorem}\label{indep_present}

2143:  For present tense $(a|b)$ and $(c|d)$ the following are

2144: equivalent: 

2145: \begin{itemize}

2146: \item Stochastic processes $\ce{(a|b)}$ and $\ce{(c|d)}$ are independent.

2147: \item The equalities \eqref{i1}--\eqref{i4} hold with $\pr_n$ replaced by

2148: $\Pr$ in each term, where we again assume an equation to hold in case when

2149: both sides are undefined.

2150: \end{itemize}

2151: \end{theorem}

2152: 

2153: 

2154: \begin{proof} For present tense $(a|b)$ the probability $\pr_n((a|b))$ is

2155: independent of $n,$ and is (of course) equal to $\Pr((a|b)).$ Now

2156: Lemmas \ref{present-tense} and \ref{indep} give us the desired

2157: equivalence.

2158: \end{proof}

2159: 

2160: 

2161: The full characterization of independence for general temporal

2162: conditionals is not known at the moment. Most likely, if it at all

2163: exists, it must be nonuniform, in the sense that the number of

2164: equalities between probabilities depends in principle on the actual

2165: $(\varphi|\psi)$ and $(\zeta|\xi).$

2166: 

2167: However, there is a quite general sufficient condition for

2168: independence, which can be (nonuniformly) characterized by equalities

2169: of asymptotic probability.

2170: 

2171: 

2172: Call two conditionals $a,b$ {\em strongly independent\/} iff there

2173: exist stochastically independent Markov chains $\X$ and $\Y$ and

2174: projections $h,g$ such that $\ce{a}=h(\X)$ and $\ce{b}=g(\Y).$

2175: 

2176: \begin{theorem}\label{indep_strong} Strong independence of conditional

2177: events from $\TT$ can be equivalently characterized by equations of asymptotic probability.

2178: \end{theorem}

2179: 

2180: We begin with

2181: 

2182: \begin{lemma}\label{MN}

2183: Let Markov chains $\X,\Y$ have $n$ and $m$ states, respectively. If

2184: $\X$ and $\Y$ are independent until time $mn+1,$ they are fully

2185: independent, i.e., if

2186: 

2187: \begin{multline}\label{mn}

2188: \Pr\left(\hspace{-6pt}

2189: \begin{array}{ccc}

2190: X_1=w_1,&\dots,&X_t=w_t\\

2191: Y_1=v_1,&\dots,&Y_t=v_t

2192: \end{array}

2193: \hspace{-6pt}\right)=\\

2194: \Pr(X_1=w_1,\dots,X_t=w_t)\Pr(Y_1=v_1,\dots,Y_t=v_t)

2195: \end{multline}

2196: 

2197: holds for all $t\leq mn+1$ and all sequences $w_1,\dots,w_t,$

2198: $v_1,\dots,v_t$ of states of $\X$ and $\Y,$ respectively, then $\X$

2199: and $\Y$ are independent and \eqref{mn} holds indeed for all $t.$

2200: \end{lemma}

2201: \begin{proof}

2202: First of all, observe that $(\X,\Y)=(X_1,Y_1),(X_2,Y_2),\dots$ is a

2203: Markov chain, as well. 

2204: 

2205: Suppose that \eqref{mn} fails and that the least $t$ for which it

2206: fails is $t>mn+1$ (because for $t\leq mn+1$ \eqref{mn} holds by

2207: assumption).  

2208: 

2209: The in-equality

2210: 

2211: \begin{multline}\label{in-eq}

2212: \Pr\left(\hspace{-6pt}\begin{array}{ccc}

2213: X_1=w_1,&\dots,&X_t=w_t\\

2214: Y_1=v_1,&\dots,&Y_t=v_t

2215: \end{array}\hspace{-6pt}\right)\neq\\

2216: \Pr(X_1=w_1,\dots,X_t=w_t)\Pr(Y_1=v_1,\dots,Y_t=v_t)

2217: \end{multline}

2218: 

2219: 

2220: is by Markov property \eqref{MP} for $\X,$ $\Y$ and $(\X,\Y)$

2221: equivalent to

2222: 

2223: \begin{multline*}

2224: \Pr\left(\hspace{-6pt}

2225: \begin{array}{ccc}

2226: X_1=w_1,&\dots,&X_{t-1}=w_{t-1}\\

2227: Y_1=v_1,&\dots,&Y_{t-1}=v_{t-1}

2228: \end{array}

2229: \hspace{-6pt}\right)

2230: \Pr\left(\left.\hspace{-6pt}

2231: \begin{array}{c}

2232: X_{t}=w_{t}\\

2233: Y_{t}=v_{t}

2234: \end{array}

2235: \right|

2236: \begin{array}{c}

2237: X_{t-1}=w_{t-1}\\

2238: Y_{t-1}=v_{t-1}

2239: \end{array}\hspace{-6pt}

2240: \right)

2241: \neq\\

2242: \Pr(X_1=w_1,\dots,X_{t-1}=w_{t-1})\Pr(X_t=w_t|X_{t-1}=w_{t-1})\times\\

2243: \Pr(Y_1=v_1,\dots,Y_{t-1}=v_{t-1})\Pr(Y_t=v_t|Y_{t-1}=v_{t-1}),

2244: \end{multline*}

2245: 

2246: which in turn is equivalent to 

2247: 

2248: \begin{multline}\label{sprzecznosc}

2249: \Pr\left.\left(\hspace{-6pt}\begin{array}{c}

2250: X_{t}=w_{t}\\

2251: Y_{t}=v_{t}\end{array}\right|

2252: \begin{array}{c}

2253: X_{t-1}=w_{t-1}\\

2254: Y_{t-1}=v_{t-1}

2255: \end{array}\hspace{-6pt}\right)

2256: \neq\\

2257: \Pr(X_t=w_t|X_{t-1}=w_{t-1})

2258: \Pr(Y_t=v_t|Y_{t-1}=v_{t-1}),

2259: \end{multline}

2260: 

2261: because $t$ is the least one for which in-equality holds, and so the

2262: non-conditional probabilities in the previous in-equality cancel out.

2263: 

2264: Moreover, the canceling terms must be nonzero for the in-equality to

2265: hold, which means $(w_{t-1},v_{t-1})$ is reachable with positive probability

2266: from the initial state in $(\X,\Y).$ But therefore it must be

2267: reachable with positive probability in at most $mn$ steps, because

2268: there are exactly so many states in $(\X,\Y).$ So let $(x_i,y_i),\

2269: i=1,\dots, s\leq mn$ be a sequence of states of $(\X,\Y)$ leading to

2270: $(x_s,y_s)=(w_{t-1},v_{t-1})$ with positive probability. By assumption 

2271: 

2272: \begin{multline}

2273: \Pr\left(\hspace{-6pt}\begin{array}{ccc}

2274: X_1=x_1,&\dots,&X_s=x_s\\

2275: Y_1=y_1,&\dots,&Y_s=v_s

2276: \end{array}\hspace{-6pt}\right)=\\

2277: \Pr(X_1=x_1,\dots,X_s=x_s)\Pr(Y_1=y_1,\dots,Y_s=v_s),

2278: \end{multline}

2279: 

2280: because $s\leq mn.$ If we now multiply the above by

2281: \eqref{sprzecznosc}, we get, by a calculation reverse to what we have

2282: done above, an instance  of \eqref{in-eq} with $t\leq mn+1,$ a

2283: contradiction.\end{proof}

2284: 

2285: \begin{lemma} 

2286: For given Markov chains $\X$ and $\Y$ and for a fixed time $t,$ fixed

2287: sequences $w_1,\dots,w_t$ and $v_1,\dots,v_t$ of states of $\X$ and

2288: $\Y,$ respectively, the formula \eqref{mn} can be equivalently

2289: characterized by equalities among asymptotic probabilities of certain

2290: conditionals, derived from $\X$ and $\Y.$

2291: \end{lemma}

2292: \begin{proof} Let $\A$ and $\B$ be the deterministic finite automata,

2293: underlying $\X$ and $\Y.$ For a state $w$ of $\A$ let $\A_w$ be the Moore

2294: machine resulting from $\A$ by labeling the state $w$ with 1 and all the

2295: remaining states with 0.  Since all $\A_w$'s are $\dwa$-valued, there exist

2296: $\TL$ formulas $\alpha_w,$ which are true precisely when the last symbol of

2297: the output of $\A_w$ is 1.  Similarly we define $\B_v$ and $\beta_v.$

2298: 

2299: Now \eqref{mn} is equivalent to

2300: 

2301: \begin{multline*}

2302: \Pr(\PREV^{t}\TRUE\land\lnot\PREV^{t+1}\TRUE\land

2303: \Land_{i=1}^{t}(\PREV^{t-i}(\alpha_{w_{i}}\land\beta_{v_{i}})))=

2304: \\

2305: \Pr(\PREV^{t}\TRUE\land\lnot\PREV^{t+1}\TRUE\land

2306: \Land_{i=1}^{t}(\PREV^{t-i}(\alpha_{w_{i}})))\times\\

2307: \Pr(\PREV^{t}\TRUE\land\lnot\PREV^{t+1}\TRUE\land

2308: \Land_{i=1}^{t}(\PREV^{t-i}(\beta_{v_{i}}))).

2309: \end{multline*}

2310: 

2311: Each of the $\TL$ formulas asserts that it has been once that there

2312: was something $t-1$ steps ago, but there was nothing $t$ steps ago (so

2313: we have been at time $t$ precisely), and we were in the prescribed

2314: states of the Markov chain in question at times: $t$, one step before

2315: that, \ldots, $t-1$ steps before that.

2316: 

2317: \end{proof}

2318: 

2319: What remains to be seen is that we can indeed choose some canonical

2320: Markov chains $\X$ and $\Y$ to represent $a$ and $b,$ which are

2321: independent whenever $a$ and $b$ are strongly independent.

2322: 

2323: Let us recall, that any conditional event in our model is a projection

2324: of a Markov chain, derived from a Moore machine for the underlying

2325: conditional object. Since for every Moore machine there exists the

2326: minimal Moore machine computing the same function, in presence of

2327: probabilities, we thus always have the minimal Markov chain underlying

2328: any given conditional event.

2329: 

2330: \begin{lemma}\label{minimal}

2331: Let $a$ and $b$ be strongly independent. Then the minimal Markov chains 

2332: for $a$ and $b$ are independent.

2333: \end{lemma}

2334: \begin{proof} Let $\X$ and $\Y$ be two independent Markov chains, underlying

2335: $a$ and $b.$ Applying the quotient construction to $\X$ and $\Y$ we

2336: pass to the minimal Markov chains underlying $a$ and $b.$ The quotient

2337: construction is deterministic, and therefore it does not break

2338: independence (exactly like strong independence implies independence).

2339: It follows that the minimal Markov chains are independent, too.

2340: \end{proof}

2341: 

2342: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{indep_strong}] 

2343: 

2344: The conditional events $a$ and $b$ are strongly independent iff the

2345: minimal Markov chains underlying them are independent, by Lemma

2346: \ref{minimal}. The latter can be expressed equivalently by

2347: $(mn+1)^{mn}$ conditions of the form \eqref{mn} for minimal chains of

2348: $m$ and $n$ states, respectively, by Lemma \ref{MN}. Each of these

2349: conditions in turn can be expressed equivalently by a single equality

2350: of asymptotic probabilities of certain conditional objects.  This

2351: means that the strong independence of $a$ and $b$ can be equivalently

2352: characterized by a set of equalities among asymptotic probabilities of

2353: conditionals, which can be syntactically determined from $a$ and $b$

2354: and do not depend on the probability space structure.

2355: \end{proof}

2356: 

2357: Of course, for conditionals which are themselves Markov chains for any

2358: probability assignment, strong independence is the same as independence.

2359: Therefore we have

2360: 

2361: \begin{corollary} For conditionals which are themselves Markov chains

2362: for any probability assignment, independence can be characterized by

2363: equalities of asymptotic probabilities.

2364: \qed\end{corollary}

2365: 

2366: The conditionals to which this applies can be recognized by the

2367: property that their minimal Moore machine has at most one state

2368: labeled by each element of $\trzy$ (and thus at most three states

2369: altogether). Present tense conditionals are of this kind, and thus we

2370: have an alternative proof of Theorem \ref{indep_present}, which much

2371: less elegant set of equalities, however. But present tense

2372: conditionals do not exhaust all conditionals, which are Markov

2373: chains. An example is the conditional $(a|\PBOX ((\PREV a\to

2374: a^\C)\land(\PREV a^\C\to a)\land(\lnot\PREV \TRUE\to a ))),$ analyzed

2375: in \cite{TT}. Its minimal Moore machine is depicted below.

2376: 

2377: 

2378: \begin{figure}[h!]

2379: 

2380: \[\UseTips

2381: \xymatrix @C=20mm

2382: {

2383: &*+++[o][F]{1}

2384: \ar@/^/[dr]^{\textstyle{a}}

2385: \ar@<-.4em>[dd]_{\textstyle{a^\C}}

2386: \\

2387: &&*+++[o][F]{\bot}

2388: \ar@(ur,dr)[]

2389: \\

2390: \ar[r]

2391: &*+++[o][F]{0}

2392: \ar@/_/[ur]_{\textstyle{a^\C}}

2393: \ar@<-.4em>[uu]_{\textstyle{a}}

2394: }

2395: \]

2396: 

2397: \caption[Non-simple conditional with 3-states]{Moore machine of

2398: $(a|\PBOX ((\PREV a\to a^\C)\land(\PREV a^\C\to a)\land(\lnot\PREV

2399: \TRUE\to a ))).$}\label{f_indep}

2400: \end{figure}

2401: 

2402: 

2403: Therefore Theorem \ref{indep_strong} is indeed stronger than Theorem

2404: \ref{indep_present}.

2405: 

2406: Finally, we consider the question of $\PS$ \cea, for which one might

2407: want a characterization of independence in terms of asymptotic

2408: probability. Here we give a negative answer.

2409: 

2410: \begin{theorem}\label{(a|0)} There exist two conditional expressions

2411: $e_1$ and $e_2$ and a probability space such that the embeddings

2412: $\ttt{e_1}$ and $\ttt{e_2}$ are independent, while their sparse reverse

2413: counterparts $\ttrs{e}$ and $\ttrs{e_2}$ are not independent.

2414: \end{theorem}

2415: \begin{proof} Take $e_1=e_2=(0|a)$ and any probability space with

2416: $0<\Pr(a)<1.$ Then $\ce{\ttt{e_1}}$ and $\ce{\ttt{e_2}}$ are constant

2417: processes, equal to $0,$ so they are (trivially) independent. However,

2418: already

2419: 

2420: \begin{align*}\Pr(\begin{array}{c}\ce{\ttrs{e_1}})(w)=0\bot

2421: \\\ce{\ttrs{e_2}})(w)=0\bot\end{array})&=

2422: \Pr(\ce{\ttrs{e_1}})(w)=0\bot)\\

2423: &>(\Pr((\ce{\ttrs{e_1}})(w)=0\bot))^2\\

2424: &=\Pr(\ce{\ttrs{e_1}})(w)=0\bot)\cdot

2425: \Pr(\ce{\ttrs{e_2}})(w)=0\bot),

2426: \end{align*}

2427: 

2428: where the inequality holds because

2429: $\Pr(\ce{\ttrs{e_1}})(w)=0\bot)=\Pr(a)(1-\Pr(a))\neq 0,1.$\end{proof}

2430: 

2431: 

2432: \begin{corollary} \label{PS-indep} There is no characterization of

2433: independence in $\PS$ \cea\ in terms of equalities of asymptotic

2434: probability.

2435: \end{corollary}

2436: \begin{proof} Because both $\ttt{\cdot}$ and $\ttrs{\cdot}$ preserve

2437: all asymptotic probabilities of conditionals, both of them satisfy

2438: precisely the same equalities of asymptotic probabilities. So if there

2439: were a characterization of independence in terms of equalities of such

2440: probabilities, the interpretations of the two conditionals $(a|0)$ and

2441: $(a|0)$ above would have to be either independent in both cases, or

2442: dependent in both cases, while they are not, a contradiction.

2443: \end{proof}

2444: 

2445: 

2446: 

2447: The consequence is that in the \cea{} formalism is not expressive

2448: enough to define independence of conditionals by means of equalities

2449: of asymptotic probabilities. Note however, that such a representation

2450: is certainly possible by means of equalities of probabilities and

2451: equalities of the algebraic structure. Indeed, $\PS$ \cea{} is boolean

2452: algebra with respect to its connectives $\land,\lor,\llnot$ (as it is

2453: easily visible from its syntactic representation within $\TT$), and

2454: the equalities it satisfies enforce, that $\Pr_o$ is an ordinary

2455: probability measure. Therefore independence is equivalent to the

2456: standard equality $\Pr_o(\ps{e_1\land

2457: e_2})=\Pr_o(\ps{e_1})\Pr_o(\ps{e_2}).$ What we have constructed are

2458: two non-boolean subsystems of $\TT$, in which all the (asymptotic)

2459: probability assignments agree with those of $\Pr_o$, and yet no set of

2460: equalities of probabilities can characterize the true probabilistic

2461: independence in both of them simultaneously.

2462: 

2463: \subsection{Algorithms}\label{algorytmy}

2464: 

2465: \paragraph{Polynomial algorithm for PS \cea.} Let us see that our

2466: approach provides a nontrivial improvements to the algorithmic status of

2467: existing \cea's. We will demonstrate this by calculating the

2468: probabilities of conditional expressions, according to $\PS$ \cea, in

2469: time polynomial in their size and exponential in the number of

2470: variables. (Note that the number of arguments for computation of the

2471: probability of an $n$-ary conditional is $2^n,$ so the above indeed

2472: means computation polynomial in the size of the input.) In \cite{g94} it

2473: is stated that the computation of the $\PS$-probability of a conjunction

2474: of $n$ conditionals $(a_i| b_i),$ according to the method used in that

2475: paper, requires adding $\sum_{m=1}^n m!\cdot S_0(m,n)\cdot (2^{m+1}-2)$

2476: terms, each being a nonconditional probability of a conjunction of

2477: certain events $a_i$ and $b_i.$ The number of summands, where $S_0(m,n)$

2478: are Stirling's number of the second kind, is of order $2^{n\log n}.$ It

2479: is substantially more than about $c2^{n}$ one obtains for the present

2480: tense \cea's $\SAC$ and $\GNW,$ and has been stressed in

2481: \cite[p.~499]{kniga} and in \cite{recenzja}, since it strongly affects

2482: the usefulness of $\PS$ as a tool for applications. Using our approach we

2483: have instantly an algorithm to calculate the same probability in

2484: $2^{O(n)}$ steps. As a matter of fact, this applies to {\em any\/}

2485: conditional expression with $n$ arguments $(a_i| b_i),\ i=1\dots,n,$ as

2486: long as its length does not exceed $2^{O(n)}.$ All the complexity bounds

2487: given here assume unit cost of basic arithmetical operations: addition,

2488: multiplication, subtraction and division.

2489: 

2490: \begin{theorem} There is an algorithm, computing the $\PS$\/ probability

2491: of an $n$-ary conditional expression of length $m$ in time polynomial in

2492: $\max(m,2^n).$

2493: \end{theorem}

2494: \begin{proof} The first step of the algorithm on input expression $e$ is

2495: to construct the minimal Moore machine, computing $\ttt{e}.$ 

2496: 

2497: \begin{lemma} The minimal Moore machine of $\ttt{e}$ for $n$-ary

2498: conditional expression $e$ has at most $3^n$ states.

2499: \end{lemma}

2500: \begin{proof} The minimal Moore of $\first(a|b)$ has 3 states (see

2501: \eqref{first} and Figure \ref{f4}).

2502: 

2503: By the definition of the $\ttt{\cdot}$ embedding (Section \ref{FE}), a

2504: Moore machine $\A=(Q,\Omega,\delta,h,q_0)$ of $\ttt{e}$ can be

2505: constructed as follows:

2506: 

2507: The set $Q$ of states of $\A$ is the product $Q_1\times\dots\times Q_n$

2508: of state sets of Moore machines $\A_i=(Q_i,\Omega,\delta_i,h_i,q_{0i})$

2509: of all expressions $\first(a_i|b_i)$ occurring in $\ttt{e}.$ The transition

2510: function of $\A$ is defined coordinate-wise, i.e.,

2511: 

2512: \[\delta(\langle q_1,\dots,q_n\rangle,\omega)=\langle

2513: \delta_1(q_1,\omega),\dots,\delta_n(q_n,\omega)\rangle,\]

2514: 

2515: the initial state is $q_0=

2516: \langle q_{01},\dots,q_{0n}\rangle,$ and, crucially,

2517: 

2518: \[h(\langle

2519: q_{1},\dots,q_{n}\rangle)=\hat{c}(h_1(q_1),\dots,h_n(q_n)),\]

2520: 

2521: where $\hat{c}(h_1(q_1),\dots,h_n(q_n))$ is the classical logic

2522: evaluation of the expression $c$ on arguments

2523: $h_1(q_1),\dots,h_n(q_n)\in\dwa.$

2524: 

2525: This product construction is well-known for automata theory, and it is

2526: immediate that it does the work.

2527: \end{proof}

2528: 

2529: So it is quite easy to construct, given $e\in\LL,$ the Moore machine of

2530: $\ttt{e}.$ Now we have to turn this Moore machine into a Markov chain.

2531: Assuming that all the probabilities of atomic events from $\Omega$ are

2532: given, we simply replace multiple transitions between the same states

2533: represented by the sum of their probabilities---a single number.

2534: 

2535: Furthermore, the Markov chain we obtain is absorbing, i.e., it has

2536: one-element ergodic classes. It can be proven by a straightforward

2537: induction on $n$ --- the number of three element Moore machines we

2538: product. It follows \cite[Chapter III]{KS} that we can use the following

2539: method to compute the limiting probability that the chain finally

2540: arrives at a state labeled by $1$.

2541: 

2542: Clearly, in this situation we can collapse all absorbing states labeled

2543: $1$ into a single such state.

2544: 

2545: Denote by $P$ the matrix $(p(i,j))$ of transition probabilities, by $Q$

2546: the submatrix of rows and columns corresponding to transient states, and

2547: by $R$ the submatrix of rows corresponding to transient states and

2548: columns corresponding to absorbing states. Let $Id$ be a diagonal matrix

2549: with $1$'s on the diagonal and $0$'s elsewhere. Let $B=(Id-Q)^{-1}R.$

2550: Then the probability we are looking for is the entry in $B$ in the row

2551: corresponding to the initial state in in the column corresponding to the

2552: (only) absorbing state labeled by $1$ in the Markov chain. Since all

2553: the calculations on matrices necessary to compute $B$ are doable in time

2554: polynomial in the size of the matrices, the total computation time is

2555: $(2^{n})^{O(1)}=2^{O(n)},$ as desired.

2556: \end{proof}

2557: 

2558: 

2559: \section{Summary}

2560: 

2561: We have discussed the temporal calculus of conditional objects and

2562: conditional events $\TT$ as a formalism alternative to conditional event

2563: algebras.

2564: 

2565: We have shown that all the major conditional event algebras, including

2566: those of Schay-Adams-Calabrese, Goodman-Nguyen-Walker and the product

2567: space \cea, embed isomorphically in $\TT.$

2568: 

2569: Moreover, $\TT$ is superior to those formalisms in several ways:

2570: 

2571: \begin{itemize}

2572: \item It provides natural, probabilistic semantics of conditionals,

2573: allowing one to construct experiments to evaluate all their interesting

2574: probabilistic parameters, unlike \cea's, which generally are not

2575: probability spaces, and which do not require certain probabilistic

2576: parameters to be defined at all.

2577: \item The construction of $\TT$ is functorial, in the sense, that the

2578: underlying probabilistic space of nonconditional events determines the

2579: space of temporal conditional events uniquely, while \cea's generally

2580: are not unique.

2581: \item The formalism of $\TT$ allows one to define and analyze

2582: independence of conditional events, which is difficult or impossible in

2583: \cea's.

2584: \item $\TT$ offers better algorithms for calculation of probabilities,

2585: than those known previously for \cea's.

2586: \end{itemize}

2587: 

2588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2589: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2590: 

2591: \bibliographystyle{alpha} \bibliography{bib}

2592: 

2593: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2594: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2595: 

2596: \end{document}

2597: