# The laced interactive gamesandtheir a posteriori analysis

## §1. The laced interactive games

In this paragraph we shall briefly introduce some general concepts of the theory of interactive games.

### 1.1. The differential interactive games

###### Definition Definition 1 

An interactive system (with $`n`$ interactive controls) is a control system with $`n`$ independent controls coupled with unknown or incompletely known feedbacks (the feedbacks, which are called the behavioral reactions, as well as their couplings with controls are of a so complicated nature that their can not be described completely). An interactive game is a game with interactive controls of each player.

Below we shall consider only deterministic and differential interactive systems. For symplicity we suppose that $`n=2`$. In this case the general interactive system may be written in the form:

$$\dot{\phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi ,u_1,u_2),$$
$`1`$   
where $`\phi `$ characterizes the state of the system and $`u_i`$ are the interactive controls:

$$u_i(t)=u_i(u_i^{}(t),[\phi (\tau )]|_{\tau t}),$$

i.e. the independent controls $`u_i^{}(t)`$ coupled with the feedbacks on $`[\phi (\tau )]|_{\tau t}`$. One may suppose that the feedbacks are integrodifferential on $`t`$ in general, but below we shall consider only differential dependence. It means that

$$u_i(t)=u_i(u_i^{}(t),\phi (t),\dot{\phi }(t),\ddot{\phi }(t),\mathrm{},\phi ^{(n)}(t)).$$

A reduction of the general integrodifferential case to the differential one via an introduction of the intention fields was considered in .

### 1.2. The phase lacing integrals

###### Definition Definition 2

Let us consider a differential interactive game with two players, $`\phi `$ is the state of the system, $`u_i`$ are the interactive controls whereas $`u_i^{}(t)`$ are the pure controls ($`i=1,2`$). The magnitude $`K=K(\stackrel{}{u}(t),\stackrel{}{u}^{}(t),\phi (t),\dot{\phi }(t))`$ is called the phase lacing integral iff it is constant in time for all possible parties of the game. Here $`\stackrel{}{u}(t)=(u_1(t),u_2(t))`$, $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}(t)=(u_1^{}(t),u_2^{}(t))`$.

The definition of the phase lacing integral may be generalized on games with an arbitrary number of players.

Let us consider some special classes of the phase lacing integrals:

###### Remark Remark 1

The evolution equations of the interactive game supply us by the dynamical lacing integrals $`K_i=\dot{\phi }_i(t)\mathrm{\Phi }_i(\phi ,\stackrel{}{u})`$, where indices $`i`$ denote the components of the magnitudes in any coordinate system.

###### Remark Remark 2

The phase lacing integrals are closed under natural operations (summation, multiplication on any real number or on other phase lacing integrals, functional transformations, etc). The configuration and dynamical lacing integrals possess the same property.

The phase lacing integrals may be considered for any differential interactive system. They are analogs of ordinary integrals for dynamical systems.

### 1.3. The laced interactive games

###### Definition Definition 3

Let us consider a differential interactive game with two players, $`\phi `$ is the state of the system, $`u_i`$ are the interactive controls whereas $`u_i^{}(t)`$ are the pure controls ($`i=1,2`$), each $`u_i`$ and $`u_i^{}`$ has $`n`$ degrees of freedom. The game is called the laced interactive game iff it admits $`2n`$ functionally independent over $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ phase lacing integrals $`K_\alpha (\stackrel{}{u},\stackrel{}{u}^{},\phi ,\dot{\phi })`$ ($`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},2n`$).

The functional independence of $`K_\alpha `$ over $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ means that for any fixed values of $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}`$, $`\phi `$ and $`\dot{\phi }`$ the magnitudes $`K_\alpha `$ are (locally) functionally independent as functions of $`\stackrel{}{u}`$.

Here and below we shall suppose that the phase lacing integrals depend smoothly on their arguments. In this situation the (local) functional independence is equivalent to the inequality of the Jacobian of the mapping $`\stackrel{}{u}(K_1,\mathrm{},K_{2n})`$ to zero.

Note that the evolution equations provide us by $`m`$ dynamical lacing integrals (see remark 1), where $`m`$ is the number of degrees of freedom of the system, i.e. the number of coordinates, which describe the state $`\phi `$. If all such dynamical lacing integrals are functionally independent we should look for at least $`2nm`$ other phase lacing integrals. Often we are able to choose them from the configuration lacing integrals.

## §2. A posteriori analysis of the laced interactive games

### 2.1. A posteriori determination of feedbacks

A posteriori determination of feedbacks means the expression of $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ via $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}`$, $`\phi `$ and $`\dot{\phi }`$ using the phase lacing integrals $`K_\alpha `$. These determination presupposes the knowledge of such a posteriori data as $`\dot{\phi }`$.

###### Theorem 1

Let us consider a laced interactive game, $`\phi `$ is the state of the system, $`u_i`$ are the interactive controls whereas $`u_i^{}(t)`$ are the pure controls of two players ($`i=1,2`$), each $`u_i`$ and $`u_i^{}`$ has $`n`$ degrees of freedom, $`K_1,\mathrm{}K_{2n}`$ are the phase lacing integrals. In this case the interactive controls $`u_i`$ may be expressed (locally) via pure controls $`u_i^{}`$, the state $`\phi `$, its time derivative $`\dot{\phi }`$ and the phase lacing integrals $`K_\alpha `$ as known constants.

###### Demonstration Proof

One should use the fact that the phase lacing integrals are known constants and that the Jacobian of the mapping $`\stackrel{}{u}(K_1,\mathrm{},K_{2n})`$ is not equal to zero.

###### Remark Remark 3

Note that each interactive control $`u_1`$ and $`u_2`$ is expressed via both $`u_1^{}`$ and $`u_2^{}`$.

### 2.2. Virtual a posteriori decomposition of a collective control

The virtual a posteriori decomposition of a collective control means such simultaneous transformation of both interactive and pure controls of two players to the controls of the virtual players that a posteriori determined feedback of each such player does not contain a dependence on the controls of the other player.

###### Theorem 2

Let us consider a laced interactive game, $`\phi `$ is the state of the system, $`u_i`$ are the interactive controls whereas $`u_i^{}(t)`$ are the pure controls of two players ($`i=1,2`$), each $`u_i`$ and $`u_i^{}`$ has $`n`$ degrees of freedom, $`K_1,\mathrm{}K_{2n}`$ are the phase lacing integrals. Let the interactive controls $`u_i`$ be expressed (locally) via pure controls $`u_i^{}`$, the state $`\phi `$, its time derivative $`\dot{\phi }`$ and the phase lacing integrals $`K_\alpha `$ as known constants:

$$u_i=u_i(\stackrel{}{u}^{},\phi ,\dot{\phi };K_\alpha ).$$

Suppose that $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}=0`$ implies that $`\stackrel{}{u}=0`$ (i.e. $`0`$ is the stationary point of the mapping $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}\stackrel{}{u}`$) and also the Jacobi matrix of the mapping $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}\stackrel{}{u}`$ is nondegenerate and diagonalizable at certain neighbourhood of zero then there exist the functions $`\zeta (\stackrel{}{x};\phi ,\dot{\phi },K_\alpha )`$ locally at some neighbourhood of zero so that if we transform both interactive and pure controls $`\stackrel{}{u}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}`$ according to them:

$`\stackrel{}{w}=`$ $`\zeta (\stackrel{}{u};\phi ,\dot{\phi },K_\alpha )`$   
$`\stackrel{}{w}^{}=`$ $`\zeta (\stackrel{}{u}^{};\phi ,\dot{\phi },K_\alpha )`$   
then in new variables $`\stackrel{}{w}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{w}^{}`$ a posteriori determined feedbacks would contain the dependences only between the related components of the controls $`\stackrel{}{w}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{w}^{}`$, i.e.

$`w_1=`$ $`w_1(w_1^{},\phi ,\dot{\phi };K_\alpha ),`$   
$`w_2=`$ $`w_2(w_2^{},\phi ,\dot{\phi };K_\alpha ).`$   
###### Demonstration Proof

The function $`\zeta `$ is constructed explicitely starting from the point $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}=0`$ to provide the claimed conditions on the mapping $`\stackrel{}{w}^{}\stackrel{}{w}`$.

###### Remark Remark 4

The controls $`w_i`$ and $`w_i^{}`$ ($`i=1,2`$) may be interpreted as interactive and pure controls of two virtual players. The transformation of the real players to the virtual players depends on the state $`\phi `$ of the game and a posteriori determined its time derivative $`\dot{\phi }`$.

###### Remark Remark 5 (some psychological interpretations)

The virtual a posteriori decomposition of a collective control may be regarded as an identification of two virtual players in the area of collective subconscious behavioral reactions. A posteriori analysis of the laced interactive games allows to make such procedure on the mathematical level of precision. It is remarkable that such decomposition depends on the state $`\phi `$ and on its time derivative $`\dot{\phi }`$ (hence, on the intensity of the real controls).

## §3. The retarded control approximation

A posteriori analysis of the laced interactive games allows to give some approximations of the interactive game by ordinary differential games in real time; the obtained series of the approximating ordinary differential games may be used for the formulation of predictions for processes in the considered interactive game.

### 3.1. The frozen feedback approximation

The simplest approximation of a laced interactive game by the ordinary differential games is the frozen feedback approximation. Let us consider the fixed moment $`t_0`$ of time and the observed values of $`\phi (t_0)`$ and $`\dot{\phi }(t_0)`$. Then the knowledge of the phase lacing integrals $`K_\alpha `$ allows us to express the interactive controls $`\stackrel{}{u}(t_0)`$ via the pure controls $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}(t_0)`$:

$$\stackrel{}{u}(t_0)=\stackrel{}{u}(\stackrel{}{u}^{}(t_0),\phi (t_0),\dot{\phi }(t_0);K_\alpha ).$$

This a posteriori determined feedback may be frozen and substituted into the evolution equations:

$$\dot{\phi }(t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi (t),\stackrel{}{u}(\stackrel{}{u}^{}(t),\phi (t_0),\dot{\phi }(t_0);K_\alpha )).$$

Thus we obtain an ordinary differential game, which is just the frozen feedback approximation of the initial laced interactive game.

### 3.2. The retarded control approximation

The retarded control approximation of a laced interactive game is constructed in the following manner. Let us consider an arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Delta }t>0`$. For any moment of time $`t`$ the knowledge of the phase lacing integrals $`K_\alpha `$ allows us to perform a posteriori determination of feedbacks, i.e. to express the interactive controls $`\stackrel{}{u}(t)`$ via the pure controls $`\stackrel{}{u}^{}(t)`$:

$$\stackrel{}{u}(t)=\stackrel{}{u}(\stackrel{}{u}^{}(t),\phi (t),\dot{\phi }(t);K_\alpha ).$$

Let us now substitute the state $`\phi (t)`$ and its time derivative $`\dot{\phi }(t)`$ by their retarded (delayed) values $`\phi (t\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ and $`\dot{\phi }(t\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$. Such approximated feedback may be substituted into the evolution equations:

$$\dot{\phi }(t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi (t),\stackrel{}{u}(\stackrel{}{u}^{}(t),\phi (t\mathrm{\Delta }t),\dot{\phi }(t\mathrm{\Delta }t);K_\alpha )).$$

Thus we obtain an ordinary differential game (with the retarded, delayed arguments), which is just the retarded control approximation of the initial laced interactive game.

Sometimes the frozen feedback approximation and the retarded control approximation coincide but it is not so in general.

###### Remark Remark 6

The retarded control approximations form a series of approximation defined by the initial time $`t_0`$, such that the states $`\phi (t)`$ for the considered laced interactive game at $`t<t_0`$ are the initial data the approximation. One may describe more subtle effects considering the mutual correlations of the retarded control approximations with variable $`t_0`$.

I suspect that the ideological intuition of the nonlinear geometric algebra  (see also ) may be essential for the analysis of series of the retarded control approximation, for instance a verification of any algebraic correlations between the different retarded control approximations may be important as during analysis of concrete games as for the axiomatic separation of the interesting classes of the laced interactive games or for a classification of various types of interactivity.

Note that the procedure of virtualization may be considered not only for the interactive systems  but also for the interactive games.

###### Remark Remark 7

The approximating series of games may be used for a formulation of predictions for processes in the initial interactive game. Such formulation may be analytic, however, it is difficult to perceive and to interpret the obtained results in real time. Thus, it is rather reasonable to use some visual representation for the series of the approximating games. Thus, we are constructing an enlargement of the interactive game, in which the players interactively observe the visual predictions for a game in real time. Certainly, such enlargement may strongly transform the structure of interactivity of the game (i.e. to change the feedbacks entered into the interactive controls of players). Note that the aim of the virtualization is to restore the past of the interactive processes whereas the goal of the proposed enlargement is to correct their future. In some sense they are two complementary faces of the unique general procedure.

## §4 Conclusions

Thus, an important class of differential interactive games, namely, one of the laced interactive games, was considered. A posteriori analysis of such games (including the virtual a posteriori decomposition of a collective control) was discussed. Approximations of the laced interactive games by the ordinary differential games, the frozen feedback approximation and the retarded control approximation, were constructed.