Paper detail

Chasing the Threshold Bias of the 3-AP Game

In a Maker-Breaker game there are two players, Maker and Breaker, where Maker wins if they create a specified structure while Breaker wins if they prevent Maker from winning indefinitely. A $3$-term arithmetic progression, or $3$-AP, is a sequence of three distinct integers $a, b, c$ such that $b-a = c-b$. The $3$-AP game is a biased Maker-Breaker game played on $[n]$ where every round Breaker selects $q$ unclaimed integers for every Maker's one integer. Maker is trying to select points such that they have a $3$-AP and Breaker is trying to prevent this. The main question of interest is determining the threshold bias $q^*(n)$, that is the minimum value of $q=q(n)$ for which Breaker has a winning strategy. Kusch, Rué, Spiegel and Szabó initially asked this question and proved $\sqrt{n/12-1/6}\leq q^*(n)\leq \sqrt{3n}$. We find new strategies for both Maker and Breaker which improve the existing bounds to \[ (1+o(1))\sqrt{\frac{n}{5.6}} \leq q^*(n) \leq \sqrt{2n} +O(1). \]

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.