Zero game

In combinatorial game theory, the zero game is the game where neither player has any legal options. Therefore, under the normal play convention, the first player automatically loses, and it is a second-player win. The zero game has a Sprague–Grundy value of zero. The combinatorial notation of the zero game is: { | }.[1]

A zero game should be contrasted with the star game {0|0}, which is a first-player win since either player must (if first to move in the game) move to a zero game, and therefore win.[1]

Examples

Simple examples of zero games include Nim with no piles[2] or a Hackenbush diagram with nothing drawn on it.[3]

Sprague-Grundy value

The Sprague–Grundy theorem applies to impartial games (in which each move may be played by either player) and asserts that every such game has an equivalent Sprague–Grundy value, a "nimber", which indicates the number of pieces in an equivalent position in the game of nim.[4] All second-player win games have a Sprague–Grundy value of zero, though they may not be the zero game.[5]

For example, normal Nim with two identical piles (of any size) is not the zero game, but has value 0, since it is a second-player winning situation whatever the first player plays. It is not a fuzzy game because first player has no winning option.[6]

gollark: Who's Gibson?
gollark: Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Wrong, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
gollark: I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as Wrong, is in fact, GNU/Wrong, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Wrong. Wrong is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
gollark: What the 🖕🏻 did ➡️👤 just 👉🏻️👌🏻 💬 about 👤⬅️, ➡️👤 little 🐩👩🏻? I'll have ➡️👤 💡 I 👨🏻‍🎓️ 🔝 of my class in the Navy Seals, ➕ I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, ➕ I have over 3️⃣0️⃣0️⃣ confirmed kills. I am 🚋 in 🦍 warfare ➕ I'm the 🔝 sniper in the entire 👥⬅️ armed forces. ➡️👤 are nothing to 👤⬅️ but just another 🎯. I will wipe ➡️👤 the 🖕🏻 out with precision the likes of which has never been 👀 before on this 🌐, ❣️ my 👉🏻️👌🏻 words. ➡️👤 💭 ➡️👤 🥫 get away with 💬 that 💩 to 👤⬅️ over the Internet? 💭 🔂, fucker. As 👥⬅️ 🗣️ I am contacting my secret network of 🕵🏻️‍♂️ across the 🇺🇸 ➕ your IP is being traced ➡️ now so ➡️👤 better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing ➡️👤 📞 your 🧬. You're 👉🏻️👌🏻 ☠️, kid. I 🥫 be anywhere, anytime, ➕ I 🥫 kill ➡️👤 in over 7️⃣ 💯 ways, ➕ that's just with my bare ✋🏻. ❌ only am I extensively 🚋 in unarmed combat, but I have ♿️ to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps ➕ I will use it to its 🌝 extent to wipe your miserable 🍑 off the 😀 of the continent, ➡️👤 little 💩. If only ➡️👤 could have 💡 what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring 👇🏻️ upon ➡️👤, maybe ➡️👤 would have held your 👉🏻️👌🏻 👅. But ➡️👤 couldn't, ➡️👤 didn't, ➕ now you're 💰️➡️ the price, ➡️👤 goddamn idiot. I will 💩 fury all over ➡️👤 ➕ ➡️👤 will drown in it. You're 👉🏻️👌🏻 ☠️, kiddo.
gollark: Can I be a bot and <@509849474647064576> a human?

References

  1. Conway, J. H. (1976), On numbers and games, Academic Press, p. 72.
  2. Conway (1976), p. 122.
  3. Conway (1976), p. 87.
  4. Conway (1976), p. 124.
  5. Conway (1976), p. 73.
  6. Berlekamp, Elwyn R.; Conway, John H.; Guy, Richard K. (1983), Winning Ways for your mathematical plays, Volume 1: Games in general (corrected ed.), Academic Press, p. 44.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.