Predicted reverse-mex behavior for three families of subtraction Nim with a pass
Consider subtraction Nim with subtraction set and one pass. Let denote the Grundy number without a pass and the Grundy number with a pass. The source defines the relevant reverse- recurrences by equations –. The three-family prediction. (a) For subtraction set with , equation holds, and for equations and hold; the Grundy sequence enters a loop at that threshold. (b) For subtraction set with , equation holds, and for equations and hold; moreover for every , and the sequence enters a loop at that threshold. (iii) For subtraction set with , equation holds, for every , and for equations and hold; the sequence enters a loop at that threshold. These are examples and predictions based on computer calculations; the source does not establish them as theorems or report a resolution.
References
Primary source
Urban Larsson, Hikaru Manabe and Ryohei Miyadera, “A Subtraction Nim with a Pass”, arXiv:2605.14321 (2026).
Progress summary
An unverified posted calculation claims all three predictions fail, while the only published work proves a different special case.
Larsson, Manabe, and Miyadera (2026) state the three families as Conjecture 3, based on examples and computer calculations rather than proofs. The conjecture predicts reverse- recurrences, bounds, and eventual looping for the specified subtraction sets.
Known results
- Larsson, Manabe, and Miyadera (2026) prove the separate case for , including the one-pass game and eventual periodic behavior from ; this does not establish Conjecture 3.
Posted attempt
An unverified calculation claims explicit counterexamples within the stated ranges: for family (a), for family (b), and for family (iii), with scaling extending them to every positive . If correct, this disproves all three universal predictions; it has not been independently verified.
Current status (as of August 2026): The three-family assertions remain unproved, and an unverified calculation claims counterexamples to all three; no verified resolution is recorded.
Solutions 1
CounterexampleThis solution needs a summarySee full solution
All three stated families have infinitely many counterexamples.
For a subtraction set , let and be the Grundy values without and with one available pass. The source's recurrences are
and, for ,
All three conjectured families claim that after their respective thresholds the pass option can be omitted:
Each assertion fails inside its explicitly claimed range.
Family (a). Choose , , so and the threshold is . Exact mex recursion gives
Family (b). Choose , , so and the threshold is . Then
Family (iii). Choose , , so and the threshold is . Then
Moreover, direct induction in (1) proves, for every positive integer ,
Therefore these counterexamples extend to all positive :
In every row meets its claimed threshold and (2) fails. Conjecture 3 explicitly quantifies ; the earlier restriction belongs to a different proved special case. These counterexamples concern the explicitly included small- cases; they do not assert failure after adding the extra restriction .
Source: Larsson, Manabe, and Miyadera, A Subtraction Nim with a Pass, equations (35)–(37) and Conjecture 3, https://arxiv.org/html/2605.14321 .