arXiv++ Combinatorics

A number $N$ is a triangular number if it can be written as $N = t(t + 1)/2$ for some nonnegative integer number $t$. A triangular number $N$ is called square if it is a perfect square, that is, $N = d^2$ for some integer number $d$. Square triangular numbers were characterized by Euler in 1778 and are in one-to-one correspondence with the so-called near-isosceles Pythagorean triples $(k,k+1,l)$, where $k^2 + (k+1)^2 = l^2$. A quadratic number is the product $Π= Π(k,j) = k(k+1)(k+j)(k+j+1)$ for some nonnegative integer numbers $k$ and $j$. By definition, it is the product of two triangular numbers and 4. Quadratic number $Π$ and the corresponding pair $(k,j)$ are called square if $Π$ is a perfect square. Clearly, $(k,j)$ is square if both triangular numbers $k(k+1)/2$ and $(k+j)(k+j+1)/2$ are perfect squares. Yet, there exist infinitely many other square quadratic numbers. We construct polynomials $j_i(k)$ of degree $i$ with positive integer coefficients satisfying equations: $k + j_{2 \ell}(k) + 1 = k [a_\ell k^\ell + \dots + a_1 k + a_0]^2 +1 = (k+1) [b_\ell k^\ell + \dots + b_1 k + b_0]^2$ and \newline $k + j_{2\ell+1}(k) + 1 = k(k+1) [a_\ell k^\ell + \dots + a_1 k + a_0]^2 + 1 = [b_{\ell+1} k^{\ell+1}+b_\ell k^\ell + \dots + b_1 k + b_0]^2$ for some positive integer $\ell$ and some coefficients $a_i, b_j$, $i=0, \ldots, \ell, j=0, \ldots, \ell+1$. All the obtained pairs $(k, j_i(k))$ are square. We conjecture that the products of square triangular numbers and pairs $(k, j_i(k))$ cover all quadratic squares. Additionally, we identify pairs of intervals of successive integers with equal sums of squares.

Given integer $n > 0$ and $m > 1$, we call a partition of set $[n] = \{1, \dots, n\}$ {\em $m$-good} if each of the partitioning sets is of size at most $m$ and the sum of numbers in it is a power of $m$, that is, $m^t$ for some $t \geq 0$. It is easily seen that a unique 2-good partition exists for each $n$ and, in contrast, for each fixed $m>3$, for infinitely many $n$, no $m$-good partition exists. Case $m=3$ is more difficult. We conjecture that 3-good partitions exist for each $n$ and prove that a minimal counter-example, if any, is at least 101 and must belong to the set {\centering $N_o = \{n \equiv 2 \pmod 3\} \cap \{3^t+1 < n < (3^{t+1}+1)/2 \mid t \geq 4\}.$ } For this case we provide some partial results. We also show that a 3-good partition is unique if $n \in N_u = \{1, 2, 3, 4, 3^t-4, 3^t-2, 3^t-1, 3^t, 3^t+1, 3^t+2, 3^t+3 \mid t > 1\}$ and conjecture that the inverse holds too.

We construct a finite deterministic graphical (DG) game without Nash equilibria in pure stationary strategies. This game has 3 players $I=\{1,2,3\}$ and 5 outcomes: 2 terminal $a_1$ and $a_2$ and 3 cyclic. Furthermore, for 2 players a terminal outcome is the best: $a_1$ for player 3 and $a_2$ for player 1. Hence, the rank vector $r$ is at most $(1,2,1)$. Here $r_i$ is the number of terminal outcomes that are worse than some cyclic outcome for the player $i \in I$. This is a counterexample to conjecture ``Catch 22" from the paper ``On Nash-solvability of finite $n$-person DG games, Catch 22" (2021) arXiv:2111.06278, according to which, at least 2 entries of $r$ are at least 2 for any NE-free game. However, Catch 22 remains still open for the games with a unique cyclic outcome, not to mention a weaker (and more important) conjecture claiming that an $n$-person finite DG game has a Nash equilibrium (in pure stationary strategies) when $r = (0^n)$, that is, all $n$ entries of $r$ are 0; in other words, when the following condition holds: $\qquad\bullet$ ($C_0$) any terminal outcome is better than every cyclic one for each player. A game is play-once if each player controls a unique position. It is known that any play-once game satisfying ($C_0$) has a Nash equilibrium. We give a new and very short proof of this statement. Yet, not only conjunction but already disjunction of the above two conditions may be sufficient for Nash-solvability. This is still open.

Given integers $n,k,\ell$ such that $0<k<n, \; 1<\ell$ and an integer vector $x = (x_1,\ldots,x_n)$; denote by $m = m(x)$ the number of entries of $x$ that are multiple of $\ell$. Choose $n-k$ entries of $x$ as follows: if $n-k \leq m(x)$, take $n-k$ smallest entries of $x$ multiple of $\ell$; if $n-k > m(x)$, take all $m$ such entries, if any, and add remaining $n-k-m$ entries arbitrarily, for example, take the largest ones. In one step, the chosen $n-k$ entries (bears) keep their values, while the remaining $k$ (bulls) are reduced by 1. Repeat such steps getting the sequence $S = S(n,k,\ell,x^0) = (x^0 \to x^1 \to \ldots \to x^j \to \ldots)$. It is ``quasi-periodic". More precisely, there is a function $N = N(n,k,\ell,x^0)$ such that for all $j \geq N$ we have $m(x^j) \geq n-k$ and $range(x^j) \leq \ell$, where $range(x) = (\max(x_i \mid i \in [n]) - \min(x_i \mid i \in [n])$. Furthermore, $N$ is a polynomial in $n,k,\ell,$ and $range(x^0)$ and can be computed in time linear in $n,k,\ell$, and $\log(1 + range(x^0))$. After $N$ steps, the system moves ``like a screw". Assuming that $x_1 \leq \dots \leq x_n$, introduce the cyclical order on $[n] = \{1, \ldots, n\}$ considering 1 and $n$ as neighbors. Then, bears and bulls partition $[n]$ into two intervals, rotating by the angle $2 πk /n$ with every $\ell$ steps. Furthermore, after every $p = \ell n / GCD(n,k) = \ell LCM(n,k) / k$ steps all entries of $x$ are reduced by the same value $δ= pk/n$, that is, $x_i^{j+p} - x_i^j = δ$ for all $i \in [n]$ and $j \geq N$. We provide an algorithm computing $N$ (and $x^j$) in time linear in $n,k,\ell, \log(1 + range(x^0))$ (and $\log (1+j)$). In case $k=n-1$ and $\ell = 2$ such screw dynamical system are applicable to impartial games.

Given integer $n$ and $k$ such that $0 < k \leq n$ and $n$ piles of stones, two players alternate turns. By one move it is allowed to choose any $k$ piles and remove exactly one stone from each. The player who has to move but cannot is the loser. in the normal version of the game and (s)he is the winner in the misère version. Cases $k=1$ and $k = n$ are trivial. For $k=2$ the game was solved for $n \leq 6$. For $n \leq 4$ the Sprague-Grundy function was efficiently computed (for both versions). For $n = 5,6$ a polynomial algorithm computing P-positions was obtained for the normal version. \newline Then, for the case $k = n-1$, a very simple explicit rule that determines the Smith remoteness function was found for the normal version of the game: the player who has to move keeps a pile with the minimum even number of stones; if all piles have odd number of stones then (s)he keeps a maximum one, while the $n-1$ remaining piles are reduced by one stone each in accordance with the rules of the game. \newline Computations show that the same rule works efficiently for the misère version too. The exceptions are sparse and are listed in Section 2. Denote a position by $x = (x_1, \dots, x_n)$. Due to symmetry, we can assume wlog that $x_1 \leq \ldots \leq x_n$. Our computations partition all exceptions into the following three families: $x_1$ is even, $x_1 = 1$, and $x_1 \geq 3$ is odd. In all three cases we suggest explicit formulas that cover all found exceptions, but this is not proven.

Given integer $n \geq 1, \ell \geq 2$, and vector $x = (x_1, \ldots, x_n)$ that has an entry which is a multiple of $\ell$ and such that $x_1 \leq \ldots \leq x_n$, the GM-rule is defined as follows: Keep the rightmost minimal entry $x_i$ of $x$, which is a multiple of $\ell$ and reduce the remaining $n-1$ entries of $x$ by~1. We will call such $i$ the {\em pivot} and $x_i$ the {\em pivotal entry}. The GM-rule respects monotonicity of the entries. It uniquely determines a GM-move $x^0 \to x^1$ and an infinite GM-sequence $S$ that consists of successive GM-moves $x = x^0 \to x^1 \to \ldots \to x^j \to \ldots$ . If $range(x) = x_n - x_1 \leq \ell$ then for all $j \geq 0$: (i) $range(x^j) \leq \ell$; (ii) the pivot of $x^{j + \ell}$ is one less than the pivot of $x^j$, assuming that $1 - 1 = 0 = n$. (iii) $x_i^j - x_i^{j + n \ell} = (n-1) \ell$ for all $i = 1,\ldots,n$. Due to (iii), we compute $x^j$ in time linear in $n, \ell, \log(j)$, and $\sum^n_{i=1}\log(|x_i|+1)$. For $\ell = 2$ a slighty modified version of the GM-rule was recently introduced by Gurvich, Martynov, Maximchuk, and Vyalyi, "On Remoteness Functions of Exact Slow $k$-NIM with $k+1$ Piles", arXiv:2304.06498 (2023), where applications to impartial games were considered.

In several recent papers some concepts of convex analysis were extended to discrete sets. This paper is one more step in this direction. It is well known that a local minimum of a convex function is always its global minimum. We study some discrete objects that share this property and provide several examples of convex families related to graphs and to two-person games in normal form.

Let $\mathcal{A} = \{A_1, \ldots, A_m\}$ and $\mathcal{B} = \{B_1, \ldots, B_n\}$ be a pair of dual multi-hypergraphs on the common ground set $O = \{o_1, \ldots, o_k\}$. Note that each of them may have embedded or equal edges. An edge is called containment minimal (or just minimal, for short) if it is not a strict superset of another edge. Yet, equal minimal edges may exist. By duality, (i) $A \cap B \neq \emptyset$ for every pair $A \in \mathcal{A}$ and $B \in \mathcal{B}$; (ii) if $A$ is minimal then for every $o \in A$ there exists a $B \in \mathcal{B}$ such that $A \cap B = \{o\}$. We will extend claim (ii) as follows. A linear order $\succ$ over $O$ defines a unique lexicographic order $\succ_L$ over the $2^O$. Let $A$ be a lexicographically maximal (lexmax) edge of $\mathcal{A}$. Then, (iii) $A$ is minimal and for every $o \in A$ there exists a minimal $B \in \mathcal{B}$ such that $A \cap B = \{o\}$ and $o \succeq o'$ for each $o' \in B$. This property has important applications in game theory implying Nash-solvability of tight game forms as shown in the old (1975 and 1989) work of the first author. Here we give a new, very short, proof of (iii). Edges $A$ and $B$ mentioned in (iii) can be found out in polynomial time. This is trivial if $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ are given explicitly. Yet, it is true even if only $\mathcal{A}$ is given, and not explicitly, but by a polynomial containment oracle, which for a subset $O_A \subseteq O$ answers in polynomial time whether $O_A$ contains an edge of $\mathcal{A}$.

We consider finite two-person normal form games. The following four properties of their game forms are equivalent: (i) Nash-solvability, (ii) zero-sum-solvability, (iii) win-lose-solvability, and (iv) tightness. For (ii, iii, iv) this was shown by Edmonds and Fulkerson in 1970. Then, in 1975, (i) was added to this list and it was also shown that these results cannot be generalized for $n$-person case with $n > 2$. In 1990, tightness was extended to vector game forms ($v$-forms) and it was shown that such $v$-tightness and zero-sum-solvability are still equivalent, yet, do not imply Nash-solvability. These results are applicable to several classes of stochastic games with perfect information. Here we suggest one more extension of tightness introducing $v^+$-tight vector game forms ($v^+$-forms). We show that such $v^+$-tightness and Nash-solvability are equivalent in case of weakly rectangular game forms and positive cost functions. This result allows us to reduce the so-called bi-shortest path conjecture to $v^+$-tightness of $v^+$-forms. However, both (equivalent) statements remain open.

In 1975 the first author proved that every finite tight two-person game form $g$ is Nash-solvable, that is, for every payoffs $u$ and $w$ of two players the obtained game $(g;u,w)$, in normal form, has a Nash equilibrium (NE) in pure strategies. This result was extended in several directions; here we strengthen it further. We construct two special NE realized by a lexicographically safe (lexsafe) strategy of one player and a best response of the other. We obtain a polynomial algorithm computing these lexsafe NE. This is trivial when game form $g$ is given explicitly. Yet, in applications $g$ is frequently realized by an oracle $\cO$ such that size of $g$ is exponential in size $|\cO|$ of $\cO$. We assume that game form $g = g(\cO)$ generated by $\cO$ is tight and that an arbitrary {\em win-lose game} $(g;u,w)$ (in which payoffs $u$ and $w$ are zero-sum and take only values $\pm 1$) can be solved, in time polynomial in $|\cO|$. These assumptions allow us to construct an algorithm computing two (one for each player) lexsafe NE in time polynomial in $|\cO|$. We consider four types of oracles known in the literature and show that all four satisfy the above assumptions.

We consider graphical $n$-person games with perfect information that have no Nash equilibria in pure stationary strategies. Solving these games in mixed strategies, we introduce probabilistic distributions in all non-terminal positions. The corresponding plays can be analyzed under two different basic assumptions: Markov's and a priori realizations. The former one guarantees existence of a uniformly best response of each player in every situation. Nevertheless, Nash equilibrium may fail to exist even in mixed strategies. The classical Nash theorem is not applicable, since Markov's realizations may result in the limit distributions and effective payoff functions that are not continuous. The a priori realization does not share many nice properties of the Markov one (for example, existence of the uniformly best response) but in return, Nash's theorem is applicable. We illustrate both realizations in details by two examples with $2$ and $3$ players and also provide some general results.