Partial order — where it appears
Named by 33 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
Who moves last
The player who cannot move loses. That single convention generates the whole theory — and it produces four outcomes rather than three, because a position can be confused with zero rather than greater, smaller or equal to it.
Comparing positions
One position is worth at least another when the second player wins their difference. That is the only definition there is, it is a computation rather than a judgement, and it produces an order in which some pairs are simply not comparable.
Tiny, miny, and the sizes below every size
An empty two-by-four Domineering board is worth less than nothing and more than every negative number. It is not up, not down and not a fraction — it is a miny, and the minies come in sizes, strictly ordered among themselves below a floor no number reaches.
Confused is not the same as unknown
Two positions can be neither greater, nor smaller, nor equal. That is a fourth relation with its own symbol, it is a fact about the pair rather than a limit of the method, and it is what makes a game worth playing — a position is a first-player win exactly when it is confused with zero.
What a move is worth to the player making it
The gain from a move is the option minus the position it was played from — and that is a game rather than a number, so two moves can be incomparable instead of one of them being best. Temperature is what happens when the largest of those games is asked for a single number.
How old a value is
A form's depth bounds the birthday of the value inside it, and reducing to canonical form attains the bound — for all 22 values born by day two, with no exception. Twenty-four of the 256 forms are older than what they are worth. The same reduction that makes the bound tight is what puts day three within reach: 98 option sets a side instead of four million, 9,604 forms, 1,474 values, a quarter of a second.
Nobody has to move
Every convention here rests on one sentence nobody examines — the players move alternately. Replace it with an auction and a position stops having an outcome class and starts having a number: the share of the money the second player needs. The 22 values born by day two collapse to seven of those numbers, eight of them landing on exactly a half; the new number respects the game order on all 179 comparable pairs, and is not determined by the parts under addition on 14 of 49.
How rare it is to be bigger
Values are partially ordered, and 'partially' does most of the work. On day two, 179 of 231 pairs can be compared and 13 of the 22 values can be compared with zero. One day later the shares are 60% and 29%, and the largest set of mutually incomparable values found rises from four to at least twenty-three. Comparison is the exception; confusion is what values normally do to one another.
An option nobody would take
Every reduction of a form deletes. The gift horse principle adds: a move may be handed to a player for nothing, provided it is one they would never choose. Over all 484 additions to the values born by day two, 283 leave the value exactly where it was and the 201 that move it are precisely the ones the condition forbids — with the boundary at *not better*, which is a weaker demand than *worse*.
The simplest game above both
Values sit in a partial order, and a partial order is entitled to be ragged: two things with no least thing above them. The 22 values born by day two are not ragged at all. Every one of their 253 pairs has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound among the same 22, and the order is distributive on all 10,648 triples — so it is a lattice, and the join of zero and star is one half.
The reduction that always shrinks
Canonical form is two reductions and they are not the same kind of operation. Deleting a dominated option removes one option and can do nothing else; bypassing a reversible one substitutes a whole option list. Over the 256 forms born by day two, deleting alone finishes 225 of them and accounts for 480 of the 520 options that come off — and the 31 it cannot finish are almost all the ones with a star in them.
How much a list of options can lose
Deleting a dominated option is the reduction with no surprises, and how many options it takes is decided by the shape of the order rather than by the values in it: the survivors are the maximal elements, and the count is the length of the list less the number of them. The essay separating the two reductions closed by predicting that the longest chain would give the number. It is a lower bound, exact on 3,859 of the 7,315 four-option lists and wrong on the rest.
The numbers it is confused with
A position is confused with a number when neither is at least as good as the other, and the set of such numbers is an interval. It is exactly the open interval between the two stops: over 36,850 comparisons the rule is wrong nowhere it speaks, and the 2,596 comparisons it declines are precisely the ones at an endpoint, where the position and the number differ by an infinitesimal.
When the bracket decides
A Clobber row's value is an all-small game nobody can hold in their head, so the practical answer is the up-bracket: a pair of integers between which its atomic weight must lie. As an approximation it is worth exactly what it settles — 1,585 of 7,875 pairs of rows are ordered by it, every one of those orders is right, and of the 6,290 it declines, 4,222 have no answer either.
Where the order and the sum disagree
Day two is a lattice, and day two is a group, and it is not a lattice-ordered group. The one identity that would join the two structures — the join plus the meet equals the pair — holds on exactly the 201 pairs where it cannot fail and on none of the other 52, and the errors split thirteen high, thirteen low and twenty-six confused.
Fifty-two errors and seven sizes
Day two is a lattice and a group and not a lattice-ordered group, and the fifty-two incomparable pairs it fails on leave fifty-two different error terms. Measured rather than listed, the fifty-two collapse: seven pairs of stops, three means, three temperatures, and a rule that predicts the temperature from the pair on forty-four of them.
Which option the reduction keeps
Domination deletes an option when another is at least as good, so what survives is the top of an order. On a board that order is made of moves, and two descriptions of the surviving move suggest themselves. Over 1,586 Domineering option lists one of them is right 47% of the time and the other 90%, and the one that wins is not the one a player would guess.
A threshold is a detection limit
The rung below had two points — a margin of three at fifteen squares, four at eighteen — and asked whether the mobility rule's threshold grows with the board. Eleven more sweeps say no property of a board orders the thresholds, that the same board at two depths gives two of them, and that a tenth of the sweep which produced the four reports three instead. What does move, on every board measured twice, is the depth.
A mex with no impartial game in it
The rung below described the zero fibre of the mirror map and left star's fourteen undescribed. Star's fibre is 'some element is at least nought, and none is at least star' — and the two rules are one rule: the mirror value is the least nimber no element of the set reaches. That is a mex, in a construction built entirely from partizan values.
Not a domination, in that order
The rung below asked which pair the second reduction acts on, taking for granted that the operation is a domination. It is not: on none of the 525 deletions is a surviving option greater than or equal to the deleted one. In the order the reduced form actually works in — both stops at least as good — every deletion with a survivor is a domination, the dominator is unique on all but twelve, and it always comes from the other part.
A heuristic that becomes a theorem
The mobility rule's failure rate had been measured at two depths on each of five boards and found to fall. Swept at every depth it does not merely fall — it accelerates, and it reaches exactly nought before the endgame. From four to eight empty squares onwards the rule has no exceptions at all, which turns a rule of thumb into a guarantee for the last few moves.
The price of taking the maximum
The seventy-two decisions where a Domineering strategy's rules name the wrong placement are never wrong by more than one reply, and a third of them are the second rule's fault rather than the mobility count's. The repair that follows — keep every placement within one reply of the best — retains a best placement every time and costs thirty decisions for every one it saves.
The case that was supposed to be hard
The mex rule for the mirror construction was to be proved by induction, and the step flagged as needing care was the one where an option is incomparable with the nimber. There is no induction: the argument is four lines, and incomparability is what makes two thirds of the cases go through — because a fuzzy sum is a first-player win and the first player is the opponent.
A side about to lose its move
A fifth of the second reduction's work removes the last option a player had on a side, and no rule on the ladder had looked at one — because a deletion with no survivor has no pair in it. The recognisable object is not which option goes but whether the side is one an option can go from, and two comparisons on the parts decide it on all 525.
The clause that turns the class off
Three rungs failed to find the dead-ending class doing measurable work, and each time the population was blamed. Toads and Frogs with and without the jump is the matched pair the anchor wanted — the same board with the class switched on and off — and on it the test the class licenses gains less from the class than a control that has never heard of it.
A floor, and not a decline
Comparability fell eighteen points from day two to day three and the next day cannot be enumerated. It can be built — and the construction's bias measured one day lower, where the truth is known. Corrected, day four comes to 60.6 per cent against day three's 59.7: the fall was a one-day event.
Twenty-six other values
The mex rule accounts for sixty-six of the ninety-six antichains and is silent on the other thirty. Every one of those thirty is worth a self-negative value born by day three — and the same mex, run over that family instead of over the nimbers, is exact on all ninety-six. The nimber rule is this one cut short after its fourth member.
One of four questions
Three rungs of this ladder rest on sweeps of day two — 22 values, 253 pairs. Day three is 1,474 values and over a million pairs, and only one of the four questions can be asked of it. The order can: twice as many pairs are incomparable and every one of 1,606 sampled still has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound, none of them a value day two already had. The other three compare sums of day-three values, which are born on day six, and sixty of those exhausted an eight-gigabyte heap.
Nothing to subtract with
Comparison is defined by contexts and computed by subtraction, and the equivalence between the two is a theorem about groups. A scoring game is not one — sixty-six of eighty-one coin rows do not cancel against their own negatives — and the difference test then fails on a row compared with itself, which every context accepts and nothing certifies.
The restriction that buys the most
Four candidate classes of scoring game, scored on the same two families and the same three questions. The class everyone expects to be tiny — the rows that cancel against their own negatives — is empty on rows of three and the widest restriction on rows of four, where it holds fifteen rows against the hereditary class's twelve and gets all 225 of its comparisons right against 108 of 144. The trade everyone expected does not exist.
Left always wins, and loses more often than not
Alternating play answers with one of four classes and the coin answers with a chance, and the two do not have to agree. Over the twenty-two values born by day two they never disagree and the margin is exactly nothing — the lowest chance on a position Left wins whoever moves is a half. Over the 1,474 born by day three, seven of them sit at seven sixteenths, and seven mirror them on the other side.
Every chance but a certainty
The coin's number lands on a grid of dyadic fractions, and which points of that grid arrive is a count rather than a guess. Over the 1,474 values born by day three it reaches every one of the fifteen interior sixteenths and neither end — no position is ever certain. The groups sharing a chance run 1, 2, 4, 8 on the small pool, which looks like doubling, and 1, 2, 4, 20 on the large one, which is not.
Twenty draws and a second recipe
Day four's comparability was reported as 60.6 per cent against day three's 59.7, from one built sample and one calibration. Built twenty times with each of two recipes whose biases differ by six points, and calibrated against all 1,474 day-three values rather than a quarter of them, the corrected figure spreads over twelve points from seed to seed and the two recipes agree within one standard error. The floor survives; the decimal was one draw.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
ComparisonCanonical formEnumerationStar (∗)Exhaustive searchInfinitesimalCounterexampleDominated optionNormal playOutcome classValueEquality