Talk:Sprague–Grundy theorem
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|||||
| Mathematics rating: | Start Class | Low Priority | Field: General | ||
| Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please also add comments to suggest improvements to the article. | |||||
Problems with this page:
(1) The Lemma needs cleaning up.
(2) Ideally, all of the information in the section called 'Definitions' should be removed and merged with what's in the Wikipedia entry 'Combinatorial Game Theory'. At present, however, the latter page doesn't entirely encompass what's needed for this page.
(3) The "Proof" part mixes TeX with the non-TeX math that preceded it.
[edit] Example
This article would make a lot more sense if it were expanded by including an example, for example the game of Kayles
[edit] Huh?
I thought to add credence to the calls for a clean-up by conveying a neophyte's confusion. The article includes the text:
A nimber is a special game denoted *n for some ordinal n. We define *0 = {} (the empty set), then *1 = {*0}, *2 = {*0, *1},
So, first we are told that *0 indicates a game; next we learn that *0 represents the empty set (that is, something completely different, i.e. not a game at all). Immediately thereafter, we are told that *1 is the set of empty sets. This is rather confusing, but I think that the set of empty sets must be the empty set itself (as there is only one empty set). So that *1 should equal *0 and so on for all *n. Not only is the connection with games rather obscure, but the definition appears sterile, or, well, empty.
Who can help? --Philopedia 20:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
