The collection

Every essay — page 31

One idea per essay, ordered so that the earlier ones set up the later ones — but nothing here depends on being read in sequence.

Values

What a position is worth — numbers, and the things that are not numbers, and how to find the simplest one.

The wall as an envelope. A thermograph with each option's contribution to its wall drawn over it, built from that option's two stops alone. The wall is the envelope of those contributions and it bends where the envelope has a corner.

The bend is in the stops

The rung below reduced the whole stop reading to one question — does this wall bend? — and asked whether that could be answered from the options' stops instead of from a diagram. It can, in four lines, and it gives more than the bend: on all 1,459 non-number values born by day three the options' stops determine the entire thermograph. One day deeper it breaks, and every failure is a value with a bent-walled option.

7 figures · Switches
Two orders of magnitude. The share of positions of a size whose value is one no smaller position exhibits. Every Hackenbush string is a new value and fewer than one Clobber row in a hundred is.

The rate was the alphabet

The rung below asked for a quantity a size cap cannot censor and proposed the rate: how many new values a ruleset produces per extra square. The rate is honest and it measures the notation — every ruleset grows at close to the number of symbols its positions are written in, and the seven span less than a factor of two. What separates them is the yield, which spans a hundred and nineteen.

6 figures · Realisability
Thirteen sweeps, four thresholds. The mobility rule's failures on every board and depth the sweep can afford, with the threshold each one gives. The thresholds take four different values and no ordering of the boards produces them.

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.

6 figures · Dominance
Two failures, not one. The decisions a Domineering strategy has to store, split by what the two content rules do: answer them, name a worse placement, or leave two candidates standing.

Seventy-two of them were not silence

The rung below said its 181 unanswered decisions were all the rules falling silent and asked whether the position's value picks the placement once the geometry cannot. Seventy-two of the 181 are the rules speaking and being wrong, which is a different failure. On the 109 that really are silence, a rule chosen per value answers more than half — and the star class the rung below singled out is settled outright by leaving the younger position.

6 figures · Tempo
How many levels, and how often. Every value in both pools by the number of levels of the recursion its thermograph needs before the stops suffice.

A bend that never reaches the surface

How many levels of the recursion a thermograph needs before its stops suffice is a number attached to a position, and the rung below conjectured it was the depth of the deepest bend in the tree. It is not: on 124 values a bend one level down costs nothing at all. What the number counts is the longest unbroken chain of bends running down from the top, exact on 2,400 of 2,403.

6 figures · Switches
The yield, four sizes further. Toppling Dominoes rows to twelve, with the count of values not seen at any smaller size and the share of rows that is.

The mirror was the floor

Toppling Dominoes' share of genuinely new values had fallen from one to a half over eight sizes, and the rung below could not tell a floor from a slow fall. Four more sizes settle it: the distance above a half halves every two sizes. And the half is not a shortage of values but a symmetry — a row played from the other end is the same game, and the ruleset is as injective as that allows.

6 figures · Realisability
One board, all the way down. The mobility rule's failure rate on a three by five board at every depth, with the threshold each depth gives.

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.

6 figures · Dominance
Wrong by one, or by nothing. The seventy-two decisions the rules get wrong, by how many replies the named placement misses a best one.

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.

6 figures · Tempo
The theorem a proof would have needed. The mobility rule's failures on decomposed positions against connected ones, across every board in the depth sweep.

The easy case was not the reason

The rung below found the mobility rule reaching a failure rate of exactly nought near the endgame and named what a proof would need: that a decomposed board's comparable options are ordered by reply count. That statement is false on all five boards, at margins up to two — and split positions go exact two squares of depth before whole ones, so decomposition is the easy case rather than the cause.

6 figures · Dominance
Two of three are subadditive. The birthday, the option count and the written length, each tested for subadditivity under the disjunctive sum.

Two measures bounded, and one not

A sum is born no later than its parts' birthdays together, and it has no more options than they have between them — a bound nobody had checked, and it is attained. What runs away is the length of the written form: 27 pairs of 231 exceed it, the worst by 29 characters, on a sum with exactly as many options as it was entitled to.

6 figures · Numbers
A factor, and it grows. The ratio between reducing and deciding, by the number of options the form carries.

A factor, and not an overhead

Deciding who wins a form searches the form's own tree. Reducing it to canonical form searches a difference game for every comparison, and a difference game is a sum. Over 256 forms the reduction expands 5.46 times as many positions — and the ratio runs from 0.58 at one option to 9.80 at eight.

6 figures · Canonical form
The value predicts on one residue only. Value-indexed rule selection on the silent decisions and on the seventy-two.

Close calls nothing resolves

The same value panel that settles 118 of the 202 silent decisions settles four of the seventy-two the rules get wrong. Every rule that helps at all must replace connectivity rather than follow it, and the cheapest one breaks twenty-six decisions for every one it saves.

6 figures · Tempo
Same group, three different yields. The rulesets with a trivial symmetry group, which the conjecture predicts must all have a yield of one.

Three groups, and three yields

The conjecture was that each ruleset's yield tends to the reciprocal of its symmetry group's order. Three rulesets have a trivial group and predicted yields of one; they measure 1.000, 0.531 and 0.204. And every colliding value in Push and Shove — all 175 of them — has two rows no symmetry relates.

6 figures · Realisability
The chain, scored. The chain reading of the level count against both pools.

The bend above the top

The chain reading gets three values in 2,403 wrong because it counts bends that the diagram never reaches. Counting only the bends below the position's own temperature fixes all three and breaks none — the first exact reading on this ladder, and it needs one comparison rather than the envelope the rung below expected.

5 figures · Switches
The same game, written twice. A position as it arises and the same position reduced. Left would never move to 0 when 2 is available, so that option is dominated and can go. The two games are equal — checked, not assumed — and the second is the canonical form.

A reduction that reads a graph

The two reductions are defined as deletions from an option list, and the shared form has no option lists — a node is reached from several parents at once. Both restate as rewritings at a node, the rewriting is confluent, and its fixed point is the canonical form. What does not carry over is the sharing: four fifths of the shared nodes need a different answer under different parents.

5 figures · Reversibility

All ladders · Every object named here · The position index · Figures that play back · Search