pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.13919 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-15 · 🧮 math.CO · math.PR

The Maker-Breaker directed triangle game

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 07:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.CO math.PR
keywords maker-breaker gamedirected triangletournamentparity tournamentbias thresholdrandom tournamentflip bias
0
0 comments X

The pith

In the Maker-Breaker directed triangle game on tournaments, Breaker wins on parity boards with fewer than 7 vertices but Maker wins for larger sizes, with a bias threshold of order sqrt(n).

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates Maker-Breaker games where the board is a tournament and players aim to build directed 3-cycles. On the parity tournament, they establish a sharp threshold: Breaker has a strategy to prevent Maker from completing a directed triangle for n from 3 to 6, but Maker can force one for n of 7 or more. They extend this to biased games, showing the critical bias b star of n is sandwiched between square roots of n over 12 and 8n over 3, up to lower order terms. The work also shows that in a random tournament where each edge direction is chosen independently with fixed probability p between 0 and 1, Maker wins with probability approaching 1. Additionally, they analyze a flip-biased variant where Breaker can reverse a limited number of edges in advance, finding the threshold for that budget is quadratic in n.

Core claim

For the parity tournament on n vertices, Breaker has a winning strategy for 3 ≤ n < 7 while Maker wins for n ≥ 7; the (1:b) bias threshold satisfies sqrt((1/12+o(1))n) ≤ b*(n) ≤ sqrt((8/3+o(1))n); Maker wins the game on T(n,p) with probability tending to 1 for fixed p in (0,1); and the flip-bias threshold kappa*(n) is of order n^2 with explicit bounds like n(n-11)/12 ≤ kappa*(n) ≤ (n^2-1)/8 for odd n ≥ 11.

What carries the argument

The parity tournament on which the directed triangle hypergraph is defined, serving as a concrete board to determine the exact threshold for the game.

If this is right

  • The bias threshold has the same sqrt(n) order as the classical undirected Maker-Breaker triangle game.
  • Maker can force a directed triangle in random tournaments regardless of the fixed direction probability p in (0,1).
  • The number of edge flips Breaker needs to win is on the order of n squared for the parity tournament.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Direction constraints in the triangle game do not alter the asymptotic bias threshold compared to the undirected case.
  • Similar sharp thresholds might exist for other specially constructed tournaments beyond the parity one.
  • The flip-bias model could be applied to study robustness of Maker-Breaker games under small perturbations to the board.

Load-bearing premise

The game is played on a tournament, meaning exactly one directed edge between every pair of vertices, and the winning sets are the directed 3-cycles in that tournament.

What would settle it

An explicit winning strategy for Maker in the unbiased game on the parity tournament with 6 vertices, or for Breaker on the parity tournament with 8 vertices.

read the original abstract

In this work, we investigate Maker-Breaker directed triangle games, a directionally constrained variant of the classical Maker-Breaker triangle game. Our board of interest is a tournament, and the winning sets are all $3$-cycles present in the tournament. We begin by studying the Maker-Breaker directed triangle game played on a specially defined tournament called the parity tournament, and we identify the board size threshold to be $n=7$, which is to say that for a parity tournament on $n$ vertices, Breaker has a winning strategy for $3\le n<7$, while Maker can ensure a win for herself for $n\ge7$. For the $(1:b)$ biased version of this game, we prove that the bias threshold $b^*(n)$ satisfies $\sqrt{\left(1/12+o(1)\right)n}\le b^*(n)\le\sqrt{\left(8/3+o(1)\right)n}$, which matches the order of magnitude, namely $\sqrt n$, of the bias threshold for the undirected counterpart of this game. Next, we consider the game on random tournaments $T(n,p)$, wherein the edge between $i$ and $j$, for each $i<j$, is directed from $i$ to $j$ with probability $p$, independent of all else. We prove that Maker wins this game with probability tending to $1$ as $n\to\infty$ for any fixed $p\in(0,1)$. Extending the notion of bias from undirected games to our directed framework, we introduce the flip-biased Maker-Breaker directed triangle game on the parity tournament with flip budget $\kappa(n)$, where Breaker may strategically flip the directions of at most $\kappa(n)$ edges before the game begins. We show that the flip-bias threshold $\kappa^*(n)$ for this game is of order $n^2$. More precisely, for odd $n\ge11$ we show $n(n-11)/12\le\kappa^*(n)\le (n^2-1)/8$, and for even $n\ge14$ we show $n(n-14)/12+1\le\kappa^*(n)\le n^2/8+n/4-1$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates Maker-Breaker directed triangle games on tournament boards, with winning sets being the directed 3-cycles. It establishes an exact threshold of n=7 for the parity tournament (Breaker wins for 3 ≤ n < 7, Maker wins for n ≥ 7). It proves that the (1:b) bias threshold satisfies √((1/12+o(1))n) ≤ b*(n) ≤ √((8/3+o(1))n). It shows Maker wins with probability tending to 1 on random tournaments T(n,p) for fixed p ∈ (0,1). It introduces the flip-biased variant on the parity tournament and proves that the flip-bias threshold κ*(n) is of order n², with explicit bounds n(n-11)/12 ≤ κ*(n) ≤ (n²-1)/8 for odd n ≥ 11 and n(n-14)/12 + 1 ≤ κ*(n) ≤ n²/8 + n/4 - 1 for even n ≥ 14.

Significance. If the results hold, the work meaningfully extends Maker-Breaker theory to directed tournaments. The exact n=7 threshold for the parity construction, the matching √n order for the bias threshold with the undirected case, the high-probability win on T(n,p), and the concrete linear factors in the flip-bias bounds (e.g., n-11 and n-14 arising from triangle counting) are all strengths. The paper supplies explicit strategies, pairing arguments, and probabilistic calculations that support the central claims without reducing to fitted parameters.

minor comments (4)
  1. [§2] §2 (parity tournament): the explicit pairing strategy for Breaker when 3 ≤ n < 7 could include a small diagram or table listing the pairs for n=5 and n=6 to improve readability.
  2. [§3] §3 (bias threshold): the o(1) terms in the lower and upper bounds on b*(n) are stated but the error terms from the degree counting could be bounded more explicitly in the proof of the upper bound.
  3. [§4] §4 (random tournaments): the application of the random-hypergraph criterion is standard, but the precise probability threshold used for the appearance of directed triangles should be cross-referenced to the relevant lemma.
  4. [§5] Notation: the flip budget is denoted κ(n) while the threshold is κ*(n); ensure consistent use of the asterisk throughout the flip-bias section.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive and accurate summary of our results on the Maker-Breaker directed triangle game, including the exact threshold for the parity tournament, the bias threshold bounds, the result on random tournaments, and the flip-bias analysis. We appreciate the recommendation for minor revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper derives its threshold results (exact n=7 switch for the parity tournament, sqrt(n)-order bias bounds, whp Maker win on T(n,p), and n^2-order flip-bias bounds) via explicit Breaker/Maker strategies, direct counting of directed triangles per vertex/edge in the parity construction, pairing/degree arguments, and standard random-hypergraph criteria. None of these steps reduce a claimed prediction or first-principles result to a fitted input or self-citation by the paper's own equations; the concrete factors (n-11, n-14) and o(1) terms arise from independent enumeration inside the parity tournament definition. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the stated board, winning sets, and game rules.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard definitions from graph theory and positional games without introducing new free parameters or invented entities beyond the game setup.

axioms (2)
  • standard math A tournament is a directed complete graph with exactly one directed edge between every pair of vertices.
    Standard definition invoked as the game board.
  • domain assumption The winning sets are all directed 3-cycles present in the tournament.
    Defined as Maker's target structures.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5946 in / 1424 out tokens · 59003 ms · 2026-05-18T07:46:33.069545+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.