On lattices from combinatorial game theory modularity and a representation theorem: Finite case

We show that a self-generated set of combinatorial games, S, may not be hereditarily closed but, strong self-generation and hereditary closure are equivalent in the universe of short games. In [13], the question “Is there a set which will give an on-distributive but modular lattice?” appears. A useful necessary condition for the existence of a finite non-distributive modular L(S) is proved. We show the existence of S such that L(S) is modular and not distributive, exhibiting the first known example. More, we prove a Representation Theorem with Games that allows the generation of all finite lattices in game context. Finally, a computational tool for drawing lattices of games is presented.

A pointwise constrained version of the Liapunov convexity theorem for vectorial linear first-order control systems

We generalize the Liapunov convexity theorem's version for vectorial control systems driven by linear ODEs of first-order p = 1 , in any dimension d ∈ N , by including a pointwise state-constraint. More precisely, given a x ‾ ( ⋅ ) ∈ W p , 1 ( [ a , b ] , R d ) solving the convexified p-th order differential inclusion L p x ‾ ( t ) ∈ co { u 0 ( t ) , u 1 ( t ) , … , u m ( t ) } a.e., consider the general problem consisting in finding bang-bang solutions (i.e. L p x ˆ ( t ) ∈ { u 0 ( t ) , u 1 ( t ) , … , u m ( t ) } a.e.) under the same boundary-data, x ˆ ( k ) ( a ) = x ‾ ( k ) ( a ) & x ˆ ( k ) ( b ) = x ‾ ( k ) ( b ) ( k = 0 , 1 , … , p − 1 ); but restricted, moreover, by a pointwise state constraint of the type 〈 x ˆ ( t ) , ω 〉 ≤ 〈 x ‾ ( t ) , ω 〉 ∀ t ∈ [ a , b ] (e.g. ω = ( 1 , 0 , … , 0 ) yielding x ˆ 1 ( t ) ≤ x ‾ 1 ( t ) ). Previous results in the scalar d = 1 case were the pioneering Amar & Cellina paper (dealing with L p x ( ⋅ ) = x ′ ( ⋅ ) ), followed by Cerf & Mariconda results, who solved the general case of linear differential operators L p of order p ≥ 2 with C 0 ( [ a , b ] ) -coefficients. This paper is dedicated to: focus on the missing case p = 1 , i.e. using L p x ( ⋅ ) = x ′ ( ⋅ ) + A ( ⋅ ) x ( ⋅ ) ; generalize the dimension of x ( ⋅ ) , from the scalar case d = 1 to the vectorial d ∈ N case; weaken the coefficients, from continuous to integrable, so that A ( ⋅ ) now becomes a d × d -integrable matrix; and allow the directional vector ω to become a moving AC function ω ( ⋅ ) . Previous vectorial results had constant ω, no matrix (i.e. A ( ⋅ ) ≡ 0 ) and considered: constant control-vertices (Amar & Mariconda) and, more recently, integrable control-vertices (ourselves).