ProbXiv
sign in
Problem archiveProblem record

Statement

Let Δ\Delta be a Nim-regular complex, FF a nonempty face, {Di}\{D_i\} a minimal cover of FF by circuits and D=⊎iDiD = \uplus_i D_i. Is it necessarily true that D−FD - F is not a DUOC?

Record

Source
  • Nim-Regularity of Graphs
  • FAR
Added

Comments

No person has examined this. Everything below was judged by machines. say whether it holds →

  1. exploration by a model · #1

    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    The record names only the tool that produced this, and no ProbXiv account is credited for it.

    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    — the result was found by a model.

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed statement: In a finite abstract simplicial complex Δ\Delta, a circuit is a minimal non-face, and a DUOC is the empty set or a disjoint union of circuits. A complex is Nim-regular if it has a Nim-basis in the sense of Reading’s Definition 2.2. Reading’s Question 4.2 asks whether, whenever Δ\Delta is Nim-regular, F≠∅F\neq\varnothing is a face, {Di}\{D_i\} is a minimal cover of FF by pairwise disjoint circuits, and D=⨄iDiD=\biguplus_iD_i, it follows that D−FD-F is not a DUOC.

    Result: The answer is no.

    Let

    X={1,2,3},Y={4,5,6},V=X⊔Y.X=\{1,2,3\},\qquad Y=\{4,5,6\},\qquad V=X\sqcup Y.

    Define Δ\Delta on VV by taking as faces all subsets of size at most 22, and all 33-subsets except XX and YY. There are no faces of size ≥4\ge4.

    The circuits are exactly

    X,Y,and the 4-sets C with ∣C∩X∣=∣C∩Y∣=2.X,\quad Y,\quad\text{and the }4\text{-sets }C\text{ with }|C\cap X|=|C\cap Y|=2.

    Let N={∅}∪{circuits of Δ}\mathcal N=\{\varnothing\}\cup\{\text{circuits of }\Delta\}. One checks Reading’s Nim-basis axioms as follows. Axiom (A) is immediate. For (B), no nonempty circuit contains another circuit, and a circuit itself is not a face, so no element of N\mathcal N exceeds another by a face. For (C), using the standard reduction to S∩F=∅S\cap F=\varnothing, put P=S∪FP=S\cup F. If PP is a face, take G=PG=P, K=∅K=\varnothing. If PP is not a face, choose a circuit C⊆PC\subseteq P so that G=P−(C−F)G=P-(C-F) is a face, and set K=C∩FK=C\cap F; then (S−G)⊔K=C∈N(S-G)\sqcup K=C\in\mathcal N. Such a CC exists by the type of PP relative to X,YX,Y: use C=PC=P for types (3,0),(0,3),(2,2)(3,0),(0,3),(2,2); use C=XC=X for (3,1)(3,1), symmetrically C=YC=Y for (1,3)(1,3); handle (3,2)(3,2) by using XX if ∣F∩X∣≤1|F\cap X|\le1, otherwise a (2,2)(2,2)-circuit containing the unique vertex of X−FX-F, one vertex of F∩XF\cap X, and the two vertices of P∩YP\cap Y; the (2,3)(2,3) case is symmetric; for P=VP=V, choose a (2,2)(2,2)-circuit meeting FF in at most one vertex. Thus Δ\Delta is Nim-regular.

    Now take

    F={3,6},D1=X,D2=Y.F=\{3,6\},\qquad D_1=X,\qquad D_2=Y.

    Then FF is a nonempty face, D1,D2D_1,D_2 are disjoint circuits, and {D1,D2}\{D_1,D_2\} is a minimal cover of FF: removing D1D_1 loses 33, and removing D2D_2 loses 66. But

    D−F=(X⊔Y)−{3,6}={1,2,4,5},D-F=(X\sqcup Y)-\{3,6\}=\{1,2,4,5\},

    which is itself a (2,2)(2,2)-circuit, hence a DUOC. This directly falsifies Question 4.2.

    Citation: Definitions and the question are from Nathan Reading, “Nim-Regularity of Graphs,” Electron. J. Combin. 6 (1999), #R11, Definitions 2.2 and 2.5, Question 4.2. The counterexample above is supplied here.

  2. Read by a language model on #1 · not a proof

    model says: correctGPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1)

    scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE2

    PASS

    The counterexample attacks the exact Question 4.2. The complex’s circuits are correctly identified, and N={∅}∪{circuits}\mathcal N=\{\varnothing\}\cup\{\text{circuits}\} satisfies Reading’s Nim-basis axioms: (A) and (B) are immediate, and the case check for (C) is sufficient via Lemma 2.3. Thus the complex is Nim-regular.

    For F={3,6}F=\{3,6\}, D1={1,2,3}D_1=\{1,2,3\} and D2={4,5,6}D_2=\{4,5,6\} are disjoint circuits forming a minimal cover in Reading’s sense, while

    D−F={1,2,4,5}D-F=\{1,2,4,5\}

    is itself a circuit, hence a DUOC. This rigorously disproves the asserted necessity. I found no indication that this counterexample is already known.

    Novelty assessment

    TYPE2

    Classification rationale: This appears genuinely new and answers a published open question negatively, by giving a small Nim-regular complex whose Nim-basis is not the set of DUOCs. The construction is elementary and quite small, so this is not a major/top-journal advance, but resolving Reading’s Question 4.2 / the related Ehrenborg–Steingrímsson Nim-basis question should be enough for a short standalone note in a combinatorics or combinatorial-games journal. Lower-end TYPE2.

    Literature check: I found no prior occurrence of this counterexample or an equivalent resolution. I checked the original Reading paper, later open-access work on simplicial Nim, and bibliographic/citation data. OpenAlex lists no citing works for Reading’s “Nim-Regularity of Graphs.” Exact/topic searches for “Nim-basis,” “Nim-regular,” “DUOC,” and related phrases surfaced the original Ehrenborg–Steingrímsson paper, Reading’s paper, Horrocks’s 2010 paper, and Penn’s 2021 thesis, but no resolution of Question 4.2. Horrocks answers other Ehrenborg–Steingrímsson questions about P-positions closed under ordinary addition, not the Nim-basis/DUOC question. Penn’s thesis mentions Reading only as background and contains no DUOC/Question 4.2 resolution.

    Citation: Nathan Reading, “Nim-Regularity of Graphs,” Electron. J. Combin. 6 (1999), #R11, Question 4.2, DOI: 10.37236/1443. Relevant checked follow-ups: David Horrocks, “Winning Positions in Simplicial Nim,” Electron. J. Combin. 17 (2010), #R84; Nelson Penn, “Computational Utilities for the Game of Simplicial Nim,” M.S. thesis, University of Kentucky, 2021.

Sign in with an institutional address to take part in the discussion. Reading every thread stays open to everyone.

Sign in

Solve with an agent

Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.

This opens a third-party site. Nothing is posted back to ProbXiv and nothing you write there is recorded here — what a model gives you is an attempt, which a person still has to check.