The Sprague–Grundy conjecture for near-square rectairs

From papers

A rectair is the rectair family used in CRIM, and G\mathcal G denotes its Sprague–Grundy value. Near-square rectair conjecture. For r7r\geq7,

G(Rr,r1k)={3k=r2 and r is odd,1otherwise.\mathcal G(R_{r,r-1}^k)= \begin{cases} 3& k=r-2\text{ and }r\text{ is odd},\\ 1&\text{otherwise.} \end{cases}

In addition,

G(R3,21)=G(R5,43)=3,G(R4,32)=2,G(R6,54)=5.\mathcal G(R^1_{3,2})=\mathcal G(R^3_{5,4})=3,\qquad \mathcal G(R^2_{4,3})=2,\qquad \mathcal G(R^4_{6,5})=5.

All other rectairs have Sprague–Grundy value 11. These values are proposed as an extension of the computed rectair cases; the source gives no resolution.

Progress summary

Open

No public discussion or published progress on this conjecture was found.

No public discussion or published progress was found for the near-square rectair conjecture.

Current status (as of August 2026): The conjecture appears open, with no recorded public activity or resolution.

Sources & referencesView supporting material

Primary source

Ina Bašić, Eric Gottlieb and Matjaž Krnc, “CRIM: A Natural Game on Integer Partitions”, arXiv:2606.16828 (2026).

Solutions 1

Counterexample

The near-square rectair conjecture fails in both parity branches, already at the first two values in its stated range r7r\ge7.

Write λ\lambda' for the conjugate partition. The exact normal-play recursion is

G()=0,G(λ)=mex ⁣({G(λ with one row deleted)}{G((λ with one row deleted))}).G(\varnothing)=0,\qquad G(\lambda) = \operatorname{mex}\!\left( \{G(\lambda\text{ with one row deleted})\} \cup \{G((\lambda'\text{ with one row deleted})')\} \right).

Every recursive call strictly decreases the number of boxes.

For r=7r=7 and k=5k=5, the source's rectair definition gives

R7,65=(6,6,5,4,3,2,1).R^5_{7,6}=(6,6,5,4,3,2,1).

Its distinct followers and exact recursively computed Grundy values are

followerG(6,6,5,4,3,2)0(6,6,5,4,3,1)2(6,6,5,4,2,1)0(6,6,5,3,2,1)4(6,6,4,3,2,1)0(6,5,4,3,2,1)0(5,5,5,4,3,2,1)2(5,5,4,4,3,2,1)4(5,5,4,3,3,2,1)0(5,5,4,3,2,2,1)4(5,5,4,3,2,1,1)0(5,5,4,3,2,1)5\begin{array}{c|c} \text{follower}&G\\ \hline (6,6,5,4,3,2)&0\\ (6,6,5,4,3,1)&2\\ (6,6,5,4,2,1)&0\\ (6,6,5,3,2,1)&4\\ (6,6,4,3,2,1)&0\\ (6,5,4,3,2,1)&0\\ (5,5,5,4,3,2,1)&2\\ (5,5,4,4,3,2,1)&4\\ (5,5,4,3,3,2,1)&0\\ (5,5,4,3,2,2,1)&4\\ (5,5,4,3,2,1,1)&0\\ (5,5,4,3,2,1)&5 \end{array}

Consequently

G(R7,65)=mex{0,2,4,5}=1,G(R^5_{7,6}) = \operatorname{mex}\{0,2,4,5\} = 1,

whereas the conjecture predicts 33, because k=r2k=r-2 and rr is odd.

Conversely, take r=8r=8 and k=6k=6. For

R8,76=(7,7,6,5,4,3,2,1),R^6_{8,7}=(7,7,6,5,4,3,2,1),

the fourteen distinct followers have Grundy values

0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,2,2,2,2,2,4.0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,2,2,2,2,2,4.

Therefore

G(R8,76)=mex{0,1,2,4}=3,G(R^6_{8,7}) = \operatorname{mex}\{0,1,2,4\} = 3,

whereas the conjecture predicts 11.

The parity error is also exposed by the source's own subsequent conjecture. Its padded staircase satisfies

PSn=Rn+1,nn1.\mathrm{PS}_n=R^{n-1}_{n+1,n}.

Thus Conjecture 3 predicts G(PSn)=3G(\mathrm{PS}_n)=3 for even n6n\ge6 and 11 for odd n7n\ge7, while Conjecture 5 predicts exactly the opposite on both infinite families. The exact cases n=6,7n=6,7 identify Conjecture 3 as false. The suggested parity repair for all larger rr remains a separate open claim.

Source: I. Bašić, E. Gottlieb, and M. Krnc, “CRIM: A Natural Game on Integer Partitions,” arXiv:2606.16828, Conjectures 3 and 5.

0 endorsements
Shivam Patel ·