Paper detail

Impartial games with entailing moves

Combinatorial Game Theory has also been called `additive game theory', whenever the analysis involves sums of independent game components. Such {\em disjunctive sums} invoke comparison between games, which allows abstract values to be assigned to them. However, there are rulesets with {\em entailing moves} that break the alternating play axiom and/or restrict the other player's options within the disjunctive sum components. These situations are exemplified in the literature by a ruleset such as {\sc nimstring}, a normal play variation of the classical children's game {\sc dots \& boxes}, and {\sc top~entails}, an elegant ruleset introduced in the classical work Winning Ways, by Berlekamp Conway and Guy. Such rulesets fall outside the scope of the established normal play theory. Here, we axiomatize normal play via two new terminating games, $\infty$ (Left wins) and $\overline\infty$ (Right wins), and a more general theory is achieved. We define {\em affine impartial}, which extends classical impartial games, and we analyze their algebra by extending the established Sprague-Grundy theory, with an accompanying minimum excluded rule. Solutions of {\sc nimstring} and {\sc top~entails} are given to illustrate the theory.

preprint2021arXivOpen 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.