Predicted reverse-mex behavior for three families of subtraction Nim with a pass

Less than 1 year old · traced to

Consider subtraction Nim with subtraction set {s1,s2,s3}\{s_1,s_2,s_3\} and one pass. Let G(x,0)\mathcal{G}(x,0) denote the Grundy number without a pass and G(x,1)\mathcal{G}(x,1) the Grundy number with a pass. The source defines the relevant reverse-mexmex recurrences by equations (1)(1)–(3)(3). The three-family prediction. (a) For subtraction set {s1,s2,s3}={a,2an,2an+a}\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}=\{a,2an,2an+a\} with a,n∈Na,n\in\mathbb{N}, equation (1)(1) holds, and for x≥6an+(4a+1)x\geq6an+(4a+1) equations (2)(2) and (3)(3) hold; the Grundy sequence enters a loop at that threshold. (b) For subtraction set {a,(2n+1)a,(2n+3)a}\{a,(2n+1)a,(2n+3)a\} with a,n∈Na,n\in\mathbb{N}, equation (1)(1) holds, and for x≥a(2n+3)+1x\geq a(2n+3)+1 equations (2)(2) and (3)(3) hold; moreover G(x,1)<4\mathcal{G}(x,1)<4 for every xx, and the sequence enters a loop at that threshold. (iii) For subtraction set {a,(2n+1)a,(2n+5)a}\{a,(2n+1)a,(2n+5)a\} with a,n∈Na,n\in\mathbb{N}, equation (1)(1) holds, G(x,1)<4\mathcal{G}(x,1)<4 for every xx, and for x≥a(2n+5)+1x\geq a(2n+5)+1 equations (2)(2) and (3)(3) 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

Refreshed
Claimed solved

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-mex\mathrm{mex} recurrences, bounds, and eventual looping for the specified subtraction sets.

Known results

  • Larsson, Manabe, and Miyadera (2026) prove the separate case {2,4n,4n+2}\{2,4n,4n+2\} for n≥3n\geq3, including the one-pass game and eventual periodic behavior from x≥12n+9x\geq12n+9; this does not establish Conjecture 3.

Posted attempt

An unverified calculation claims explicit counterexamples within the stated ranges: (a,n)=(1,2)(a,n)=(1,2) for family (a), (1,1)(1,1) for family (b), and (1,2)(1,2) for family (iii), with scaling extending them to every positive aa. 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.

Sources

Solutions 1

CounterexampleThis solution needs a summarySee full solutionHide full solution

All three stated families have infinitely many counterexamples.

For a subtraction set SS, let gS(x)g_S(x) and hS(x)h_S(x) be the Grundy values without and with one available pass. The source's recurrences are

gS(0)=hS(0)=0,g_S(0)=h_S(0)=0, gS(x)=mex⁡{gS(x−s):s∈S, s≤x},g_S(x)=\operatorname{mex}\{g_S(x-s):s\in S,\ s\le x\},

and, for x>0x>0,

hS(x)=mex⁡({hS(x−s):s∈S, s≤x}∪{gS(x)}).(1)h_S(x) =\operatorname{mex} \left( \{h_S(x-s):s\in S,\ s\le x\} \cup\{g_S(x)\} \right). \tag{1}

All three conjectured families claim that after their respective thresholds the pass option can be omitted:

hS(x)=mex⁡{hS(x−s):s∈S}.(2)h_S(x) =\operatorname{mex}\{h_S(x-s):s\in S\}. \tag{2}

Each assertion fails inside its explicitly claimed range.

Family (a). Choose n=2n=2, a=1a=1, so S={1,4,5}S=\{1,4,5\} and the threshold is 6an+4a+1=176an+4a+1=17. Exact mex recursion gives

hS(18)=4,mex⁡{hS(17),hS(14),hS(13)}=mex⁡{2,3,1}=0.h_S(18)=4, \qquad \operatorname{mex}\{h_S(17),h_S(14),h_S(13)\} =\operatorname{mex}\{2,3,1\}=0.

Family (b). Choose n=1n=1, a=1a=1, so S={1,3,5}S=\{1,3,5\} and the threshold is a(2n+3)+1=6a(2n+3)+1=6. Then

hS(6)=1,mex⁡{hS(5),hS(3),hS(1)}=mex⁡{2,2,2}=0.h_S(6)=1, \qquad \operatorname{mex}\{h_S(5),h_S(3),h_S(1)\} =\operatorname{mex}\{2,2,2\}=0.

Family (iii). Choose n=2n=2, a=1a=1, so S={1,5,9}S=\{1,5,9\} and the threshold is a(2n+5)+1=10a(2n+5)+1=10. Then

hS(10)=1,mex⁡{hS(9),hS(5),hS(1)}=mex⁡{2,2,2}=0.h_S(10)=1, \qquad \operatorname{mex}\{h_S(9),h_S(5),h_S(1)\} =\operatorname{mex}\{2,2,2\}=0.

Moreover, direct induction in (1) proves, for every positive integer aa,

gaS(aj)=gS(j),haS(aj)=hS(j).g_{aS}(aj)=g_S(j), \qquad h_{aS}(aj)=h_S(j).

Therefore these counterexamples extend to all positive aa:

familynSxthreshold(a)2{a,4a,5a}18a16a+1(b)1{a,3a,5a}6a5a+1(iii)2{a,5a,9a}10a9a+1.\begin{array}{c|c|c|c|c} \text{family}&n&S&x&\text{threshold}\\ \hline (a)&2&\{a,4a,5a\}&18a&16a+1\\ (b)&1&\{a,3a,5a\}&6a&5a+1\\ (iii)&2&\{a,5a,9a\}&10a&9a+1 . \end{array}

In every row xx meets its claimed threshold and (2) fails. Conjecture 3 explicitly quantifies a,n∈Na,n\in\mathbb N; the earlier restriction n≥3n\ge3 belongs to a different proved special case. These counterexamples concern the explicitly included small-nn cases; they do not assert failure after adding the extra restriction n≥3n\ge3.

Source: Larsson, Manabe, and Miyadera, A Subtraction Nim with a Pass, equations (35)–(37) and Conjecture 3, https://arxiv.org/html/2605.14321 .