The collection

Every essay — page 36

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 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
The order one day out. Whether the values born by day three still form a lattice. Twice as many pairs are incomparable as at day two, and every incomparable pair still has a least upper bound and a greatest lower bound — so the order becomes more tangled without becoming ragged.

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.

6 figures · Lattice

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