The cold positions, written in Fibonacci base
The first several cold pairs of Wythoff's game with both heap sizes written in Fibonacci base — as sums of non-consecutive Fibonacci numbers, which every integer has exactly one of. Blue is the smaller heap and red the larger. Read as digits, the pair is a shift: the larger numeral is the smaller one with a zero appended, and the smaller one always ends in an even number of zeros.
7 essays call
zeck-numerals. The drawing above is what it returns with no arguments at all; every
call below passes it something, because a placement that passes nothing draws whichever
member of the family the generator happens to default to rather than the one its essay argues
about.
The positions it draws
8 distinct positions, harvested by running this generator again at the options each essay passed it.
Where it is called
Changing this generator changes every one of these figures.
Impartial games
Wythoff's game, and the ratio nobody put there
Two heaps, three kinds of move, and losing positions that lie along a line of irrational slope. Nothing in the rules mentions a ratio, a length or a continuous quantity — and the golden ratio comes out anyway.
Out in the world
The digits say which move wins
Wythoff's cold positions are usually given as a pair of golden-ratio formulas. Written in Fibonacci base they are a statement about digits instead — the smaller heap ends in an even number of zeros and the larger is the same numeral shifted up a place — and a rule about digits answers a question about a heap of a trillion.
Impartial games
The heap is not the position
Fibonacci Nim bounds a move by twice the previous move, which puts the state outside the board: a heap of six with a cap of two and a heap of six with a cap of five are different games. So there is nothing to add and no Grundy value to compute — and the game is completely solved anyway. The opener loses on exactly the nine Fibonacci numbers up to 120, and the smallest term of the Zeckendorf numeral is a winning move in all 110 winnable heaps.
Where it stops
What restores the theorem
Fibonacci Nim breaks the recipe every impartial game is supposed to obey: one number per heap, exclusive-ored, gets a quarter of two-heap sums wrong. Index the recursion on the pair of heap size and cap instead and the recipe is exact on every pair and every triple — and the number a heap of nine carries turns out to be five rather than one.
Impartial games
The family the Fibonacci numbers belong to
Fibonacci Nim lets a player take at most twice what the last one took, and the heaps the opener loses are the Fibonacci numbers. Two is an arbitrary number. At one the losing heaps are the powers of two, at three and four and five they are four more sequences, each with a linear recurrence whose lag is twice one less than the factor — until the factor is six, where the pattern stops.
Impartial games
What the numerals knew
Every factor in the Fibonacci Nim family gives a numeral system, and the rung below predicted its separation condition would be the lag of the recurrence the losing heaps satisfy. It is not. The gap is the factor — one at c = 1, Zeckendorf's two at c = 2, and c at every factor to eight — while the lag goes 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17 and leaves its own pattern at six. The numerals then solve every one of 194,480 states, cap and all.
Impartial games
One proof, and one wrong lemma
Two measured identities were left for a proof: the move rule by induction, the gap condition from the reply bound. The induction is exact on 31,731 heaps at eight factors. The reply bound holds at c = 2 and on one index pair in twenty-seven at c = 3 — and the inequality that does the work is a third one nobody proposed.
The whole library · The position index · The figures that play back