Researcher profile

Clayton Mizgerd

Clayton Mizgerd contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

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

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

Inducibility of rainbow graphs

Fix $k\ge 11$ and a rainbow $k$-clique $R$. We prove that the inducibility of $R$ is $k!/(k^k-k)$. An extremal construction is a balanced recursive blow-up of $R$. This answers a question posed by Huang, that is a generalization of an old problem of Erd\H os and Sós. It remains open to determine the minimum $k$ for which our result is true. More generally, we prove that there is an absolute constant $C>0$ such that every $k$-vertex connected rainbow graph with minimum degree at least $C\log k$ has inducibility $k!/(k^k-k)$.

preprint2020arXiv

Bounds on Zeckendorf Games

Zeckendorf proved that every positive integer $n$ can be written uniquely as the sum of non-adjacent Fibonacci numbers. We use this decomposition to construct a two-player game. Given a fixed integer $n$ and an initial decomposition of $n=n F_1$, the two players alternate by using moves related to the recurrence relation $F_{n+1}=F_n+F_{n-1}$, and whoever moves last wins. The game always terminates in the Zeckendorf decomposition; depending on the choice of moves the length of the game and the winner can vary, though for $n\ge 2$ there is a non-constructive proof that Player 2 has a winning strategy. Initially the lower bound of the length of a game was order $n$ (and known to be sharp) while the upper bound was of size $n \log n$. Recent work decreased the upper bound to of size $n$, but with a larger constant than was conjectured. We improve the upper bound and obtain the sharp bound of $\frac{\sqrt{5}+3}{2}\ n - IZ(n) - \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}Z(n)$, which is of order $n$ as $Z(n)$ is the number of terms in the Zeckendorf decomposition of $n$ and $IZ(n)$ is the sum of indices in the Zeckendorf decomposition of $n$ (which are at most of sizes $\log n$ and $\log^2 n$ respectively). We also introduce a greedy algorithm that realizes the upper bound, and show that the longest game on any $n$ is achieved by applying splitting moves whenever possible.

preprint2020arXiv

Deterministic Zeckendorf Games

Zeckendorf proved that every positive integer can be written uniquely as the sum of non-adjacent Fibonacci numbers. We further explore a two-player Zeckendorf game introduced in Baird-Smith, Epstein, Flint, and Miller: Given a fixed integer $n$ and an initial decomposition of $n = nF_1$, players alternate using moves related to the recurrence relation $F_{n+1} = F_n + F_{n_1}$, and the last player to move wins. We improve the upper bound on the number of moves possible and show that it is of the same order in $n$ as the lower bound; this is an improvement by a logarithm over previous work. The new upper bound is $3n - 3Z(n) - IZ(n) + 1$, and the existing lower bound is sharp at $n - Z(n)$ moves, where $Z(n)$ is the number of terms in the Zeckendorf decomposition of $n$ and $IZ(n)$ is the sum of indices in the same Zeckendorf decomposition of $n$. We also studied four deterministic variants of the game, where there was a fixed order on which available move one takes: Combine Largest, Split Largest, Combine Smallest and Split Smallest. We prove that Combine Largest and Split Largest realize the lower bound. Split Smallest has the largest number of moves over all possible games, and is close to the new upper bound. For Combine Split games, the number of moves grows linearly with $n$.