11 views

Skip to first unread message

Jan 28, 2009, 2:05:34 AM1/28/09

to sprouts...@googlegroups.com

Jeff Peltier has provided counterexamples for the last 2 couples of equivalences in the Equivalences page (at wgosa).

Since the second one, (the }2.2.2.AB.} == }2.2.2.2.2.AB.} == ... ) is also dependent on the first one, (the }2.2.2A.} == }2.2.2.2.2A.} == ), my only choice is to retract both of these two couples.

After careful reexamination of my files, they seem not true :(

ypercube

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From:**Jeff Peltier** <jfpe...@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Subject: Re: Sprouts equivalences

To: Yper Cube <yper...@gmail.com>

... and as a bad news nver comes alone, for the same reason we have :

2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *4 while 2.2.2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *3

...

--

Jean-François

From:

Date: Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Subject: Re: Sprouts equivalences

To: Yper Cube <yper...@gmail.com>

... and as a bad news nver comes alone, for the same reason we have :

2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *4 while 2.2.2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *3

...

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Jeff Peltier <jfpe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yper,

Bad news, rereading your article, the one with AB.} seemed so incredible I tested it on the simplest partial game AB.} here is what Glop said:

(2.2.2.AB.}AB.}] 4) is a losing position and (2.2.2.2.2.AB.}AB.}] 3) is a losing position.

.....

Jean-François

Jan 29, 2009, 10:49:03 PM1/29/09

to sprouts...@googlegroups.com

I am disappointed by the failure of this equivalence, too.

Let's consider two sequences of order-1 partial positions,

P_n = ^x:x.((2))*n and Q_n = ^x:x2.((2))*n. In traditional

Glop notation, that is P_0=}A.}, P_1=}A.2}, P_2=}A.2.2}, ...,

and Q_0=}A2.}, Q_1=}A2.2.}, Q_2=}A2.2.2.}, ....

As in my post on "A new equivalence", these partial positions X

are determined by E_x(X), I(X), and I_x(X), where E_x(X) is the

position that arises from using the pivot externally, I_x(X) is

the set of positions arising from using the pivot internally,

and I(X) is the set of partial positions that arising from

moving internally without using the pivot.

In tabular form, the results for the P_i are as follows.

E_x I_x I

P_0 *[0] {} {}

P_1 *[0] {*[0]} {}

P_2 *[1] {*[1]} {P_1}

P_3 *[0] {*[0]} {P_2}

Comparing P1 and P_3, we see the only difference is that P_2 is

in I(P_3}, but since P_1 is in I{P_2} the P_2 is reversible.

Therefore P_1 = P_3, and similarly P_n = P_(n+2) for n>0.

Furthermore,

E_x I_x I

P_2+*[1] *[0] {*[0]} {P_1+*[1], P_2}

which is equal to P_1, since both P_1+*[1] and P_2 reverse

to P_1. This means that P_n + *[1] = P_(n+1) for n>0.

Now consider the Q_i.

E_x I_x I

Q_0 *[0] {*[0]} {}

Q_1 *[1] {*[1]} {Q_0}

Q_2 *[0] {*[0],*[1]} {Q_1}

Q_3 *[1] {*[0],*[1],*[2]} {Q_2}

Q_4 *[0] {*[0],*[1],*[3]} {Q_3}

Q_5 *[1] {*[0],*[1],*[2]} {Q_4}

We would like to reverse Q_4 to Q_3 to make Q_5=Q_3.

Unfortunately, I(Q_3) has the option Q_2, which I(Q_5) does not

have. The same problem arises with any attempt to find

equivalence among the Q_i. With *[1],

E_x I_x I

Q_0+*[1] *[1] {*[1]} {Q_0}

Q_1+*[1] *[0] {*[0]} {Q_0+*[1], Q_1}

Q_2+*[1] *[1] {*[0],*[1]} {Q_1+*[1], Q_2}

Q_3+*[1] *[0] {*[0],*[1],*[3]} {Q_2+*[1], Q_3}

Q_4+*[1] *[1] {*[0],*[1],*[2]} {Q_3+*[1], Q_4}

we have that Q_0+*[1] = Q_1 (not surprising, since Q_0=P_1 and

Q_1=P_2), but no other equivalences appear.

I would be interested in seeing partial positions that can be

used to distinguish Q_n, Q_(n+1)+*[1], and Q_(n+2). I am

also interested in seeing whether a single partial position

can be used for arbitrarily large n, or whether more and more

complicated partial positions will be needed.

Dan

Jan 30, 2009, 2:25:27 AM1/30/09

to sprouts...@googlegroups.com

Regarding the P_n and Q_n partial positions:

Lets say that R or R(A) is a partial position with A as parameter. Lets also say that for two partial positions P, R with A as aparameter (or P(A), R(A)) , we define P#R to be the position (not partial) that results after "gluing" these two partial positions together.

Now,

P_n + *1 = P_(n+1) for n>0

can be rewritten as:

For any R and any n>0, R#(P_n) +*1 = R#(P_(n+1))

We obviously don't have the same results for the Q_n.

But we do have this:

For any R, if there is a k>2 such as, R#(Q_k) + *1 = R#(Q_(k+1))

then

for any n>=k, R#(Q_n) + *1 = R#(Q_(n+1))

But this k is dependent on R so the equivalences are not "global"

So, for example, while,

2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *4 and 2.2.2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *3

let R = }AB.}2B.}

Since, 2.2.2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *3

and 2.2.2.2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *2

we have k=4 and

2.2.2.2....2A.}AB.}2B.}] = *3 (even (>=4) number of .2. ) and

2.2.2.2.2....2A.}AB.}2B.}] = *2 (odd (>=5) number of .2. )

But this k (4) depends on }AB.}2B.} and cannot be expected to be the same for another partial position R(A).

Lets say that R or R(A) is a partial position with A as parameter. Lets also say that for two partial positions P, R with A as aparameter (or P(A), R(A)) , we define P#R to be the position (not partial) that results after "gluing" these two partial positions together.

Now,

P_n = P_(n+2) for n>0

andP_n + *1 = P_(n+1) for n>0

can be rewritten as:

For any R and any n>0, R#(P_n) +*1 = R#(P_(n+1))

We obviously don't have the same results for the Q_n.

But we do have this:

For any R, if there is a k>2 such as, R#(Q_k) + *1 = R#(Q_(k+1))

then

for any n>=k, R#(Q_n) + *1 = R#(Q_(n+1))

But this k is dependent on R so the equivalences are not "global"

So, for example, while,

2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *4 and 2.2.2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *3

let R = }AB.}2B.}

Since, 2.2.2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *3

and 2.2.2.2.2.2A.}AB.}2B.}] is *2

we have k=4 and

2.2.2.2....2A.}AB.}2B.}] = *3 (even (>=4) number of .2. ) and

2.2.2.2.2....2A.}AB.}2B.}] = *2 (odd (>=5) number of .2. )

But this k (4) depends on }AB.}2B.} and cannot be expected to be the same for another partial position R(A).

Jan 30, 2009, 4:20:53 AM1/30/09

to sprouts...@googlegroups.com

So, Dan's question:

"I am also interested in seeing whether a single partial position can be used for arbitrarily large n ..."

can be rephrased as:

There exists an R such as

"I am also interested in seeing whether a single partial position can be used for arbitrarily large n ..."

can be rephrased as:

There exists an R such as

no k>=2 exists with

R#Q_k + *1 == R#Q_(k+1)

R#Q_k + *1 == R#Q_(k+1)

Jan 30, 2009, 11:22:18 AM1/30/09

to sprouts...@googlegroups.com

Yper Cube wrote:

> We obviously don't have the same results for the Q_n.

> But we do have this:

>

> For any R, if there is a k>2 such as, R#(Q_k) + *1 = R#(Q_(k+1))

> then

> for any n>=k, R#(Q_n) + *1 = R#(Q_(n+1))

>

> But this k is dependent on R so the equivalences are not "global"

Thanks for making that explicit, Yper Cube. We can define lim_Q(R)=k

in this case, and lim_Q(R)=infinity if there is no such k. Now I can

see three possible situations for

limset(Q) = { lim_Q(x) : x a partial position}

1. limset(Q) contains infinity. That means there is some R such that

R#(Q_n) + *1 is never equal to R#(Q_(n+1)). This is the situation

that you explain in your next message.

2. limset(Q) is an infinite set, but does not contain infinity. That

would mean that there is a k as above for any R, but it may be

arbitrarily large.

3. limset(Q) has a finite maximum K. This would mean that for k > K,

Q_k + *1 = Q_(k+1) , even though we don't know how to prove it.

I really don't know which of these is most likely to be the case.

For any partial position S = }w.} where w is a string of symbols

defining S, we can define S_1=}2.w.}, S_2=}2.2.w.}, .... and

continue to define lim_S(R) and limset(S). The "lousy periodicity

theorem" I described earlier is dependent on case 2 or 3 holding

for every S . I have to withdraw that theorem; I'm not even

willing to offer it as a conjecture any more.

At least we now have a known unknown.

Dan

Jan 30, 2009, 4:54:29 PM1/30/09

to sprouts...@googlegroups.com

I wrote:

> Yper Cube wrote:

>

>> We obviously don't have the same results for the Q_n.

>> But we do have this:

>>

>> For any R, if there is a k>2 such as, R#(Q_k) + *1 = R#(Q_(k+1))

>> then

>> for any n>=k, R#(Q_n) + *1 = R#(Q_(n+1))

>>

>> But this k is dependent on R so the equivalences are not "global"

>

> Thanks for making that explicit, Yper Cube.

> Yper Cube wrote:

>

>> We obviously don't have the same results for the Q_n.

>> But we do have this:

>>

>> For any R, if there is a k>2 such as, R#(Q_k) + *1 = R#(Q_(k+1))

>> then

>> for any n>=k, R#(Q_n) + *1 = R#(Q_(n+1))

>>

>> But this k is dependent on R so the equivalences are not "global"

>

> Thanks for making that explicit, Yper Cube.

I should say more--thanks for showing that this is the case. It is

a consequence of the particular sequence Q_k that if

R#Q_k + *1 = R#Q_(k+1) for k>1, then R#Q_(k+1) + *1 = R#Q_(k+2),

and therefore for all n>k.

> We can define lim_Q(R)=k in this case, and lim_Q(R)=infinity if

> there is no such k.

[...]

> limset(Q) = { lim_Q(x) : x a partial position}

[...]

> For any partial position S = }w.} where w is a string of symbols

> defining S, we can define S_1=}2.w.}, S_2=}2.2.w.}, .... and

> continue to define lim_S(R) and limset(S).

Here I must be a little more careful, and define lim_S(R) to be the

least k for which R#S_k + *1 = R#S_(k+1) = R#S_(k+2) + *1 , since

for general partial positions S we cannot conclude the second

equality from the first.

Dan

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu