On Tournaments and Negative Dependence

Abstract: Negative dependence of sequences of random variables is often an interesting characteristic of their distribution, as well as a useful tool for studying various asymptotic results, including central limit theorems, Poisson approximations, the rate of increase of the maximum, and more. In the study of probability models of tournaments, negative dependence of participants' outcomes arises naturally with application to various asymptotic results. In particular, the property of negative orthant dependence was proved in several articles for different tournament models, with a special proof for each model. In this note we unify these results by proving a stronger property, negative association, a generalization leading to a very simple proof. We also present a natural example of a knockout tournament where the scores are negatively orthant dependent but not negatively associated. The proof requires a new result on a preservation property of negative orthant dependence that is of independent interest.

\section{Introduction}\label{sec:int}
\subsection{Tournaments}
A tournament consists of competitions between several players where the final score or payoff of each player is determined by the sum of scores of the player's matches. For a tournament with $n$ players, let
${\bf S}=(S_1,\ldots,S_n)$ denote the vector of their final scores.   Under natural probability models and in many kinds of tournaments, the components of ${\bf S}$ exhibit some type of negative dependence. We briefly define two concepts of dependence to be considered in this paper and then we discuss various tournaments where these concepts are relevant. We present a theorem on negative association that unifies and strengthens known results on negative dependence of tournament scores, and leads to new ones. Specifically, we prove negative association in various models.  We also analyze a tournament in which, interestingly,  negative association holds when the draw of matches is random, and otherwise only a weaker notion of negative dependence, negative orthant dependence, holds.

\subsection{Two notions of negative dependence}
We define the following negative dependence notions. See \cite{JP1983} and references therein for details.
Throughout this paper increasing (decreasing) stands for nondecreasing (nonincreasing).
\begin{definition}(\cite{JP1983}, Definition 2.3)\label{def:NOD}
	The random variables $S_1,...,S_n$ or the vector ${\bf S}=(S_1,\ldots,S_n)$ are said to be \textit{negatively lower orthant dependent} (NLOD) if for all $s_1,\ldots,s_n$ $\in \mathbb{R}$,
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:L}
	P\left(S_1 \le s_1,\ldots,S_n \le s_n\right)\leq P\left(S_1 \le s_1\right)\cdots P\left(S_n \le s_n\right),
	\end{equation}
	and \textit{negatively upper orthant dependent} (NUOD) if
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:U}
	P\left(S_1>s_1,\ldots,S_n>s_n\right)\leq P\left(S_1>s_1\right)\cdots P\left(S_n>s_n\right).
	\end{equation}
	\textit{Negative orthant dependence} (NOD) is said to hold if both \eqref{eq:L} and \eqref{eq:U} hold.
	\end{definition}

\begin{definition}(\cite{JP1983}, Definition 2.1)\label{def:NA}
	The random variables $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ or the vector ${\bf S}=(S_1,\ldots,S_n)$ are said to be {\it negatively associated} (NA) if for every pair of disjoint subsets
	$A_1, A_2$ of $\left\{1,2,\ldots,n\right\}$,
	\begin{equation}\label{eq:cov}
	Cov\left(f_1(S_i, i\in A_1), f_2(S_j, j\in A_2)\right)\leq 0,
	\end{equation}
	whenever $f_1$ and $f_2$ are real-valued functions,  increasing  in all coordinates.
\end{definition}
Clearly NA implies NOD  (see \cite{JP1983}). In Section \ref{sec:nonRknok} we provide a natural example of a tournament where $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ are NOD but not NA.
\subsection{Round-robin tournaments}\label{sec:RR}
\subsubsection{\textbf{A general round-robin tournament}}\label{sec:grrt}
We start with a general formulation of round-robin tournaments. See, e.g., \cite{Moon2013} and \cite{BF2018}. Assume that each of $n$ players competes against each of the other $n-1$ players. When player  $i$ plays against $j$, where $i<j$, player $i$'s reward is a random variable $X_{ij}$ having a distribution function $F_{ij}$ with support on $[0, r_{ij}]$, and $X_{ji}=r_{ij}-X_{ij}$; for $i<j$ this determines $F_{ji}(t)=1-F_{ij}(r_{ij}-t)$ for
$t \in [0, r_{ij}]$. Thus each pair of players compete for a share of a given reward. We assume that $X_{ij}$ are independent for $i<j$, and also that $r_{ij} \ge 0$.
The case where $r_{ij} = 0$ has the interpretation that players $i$ and $j$  do not compete against each other.
 The total reward for player $i$ is defined for  all tournaments we consider by $$S_i=\sum_{j=1, j\neq i}^{n}{X_{ij}},\quad i=1,\ldots,n.$$
 We shall prove that $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ are NA (Definition \ref{def:NA}), extending and simplifying various results in the literature, to be specified  below, and
more generally, if $u_i$ are increasing functions, it follows that that $u_1(S_1),\ldots, u_n(S_n)$ are also NA. These functions can represent the utilities of the players. See Proposition \ref{propgenrr} for a further generalization.

  The case of the above round-robin tournament model with an integer support  $\{0,1,\ldots,r_{ij}\}$ of $F_{ij}$ was considered recently in Malinovsky and Moon \cite{MM2021}. Our results on negative dependence for the general round-robin tournament generalize the negative dependence results in
 \cite{MM2021}. Specifically, the NLOD property is  proved in \cite{MM2021}, and our general result yields the NA property with a simpler proof.

  We next discuss further special cases of our general formulation that have appeared in the literature.

 \subsubsection{\textbf{A round-robin tournament with pairwise repeated games}}

 Recently, Ross \cite{R2021} considered a special case of  the above two models where $X_{ij}\sim Binomial(r_{ij}, p_{ij})$ independently for all $i<j$,  $r_{ij}=r_{ji}$ and $X_{ji}=r_{ij}-X_{ij} \sim Binomial(r_{ij},1-p_{ij})$.
 As always, $S_i=\sum_{j=1, j\neq i}^{n}{X_{ij}}$. This model arises if each pair of players $(i,j)$ plays $r_{ij}$ independent games, and $i$ wins with probability $p_{ij}$.   Ross \cite{R2021} obtained NOD-type  results for general $p_{ij}$ using log-concavity, conditioning, and Efron's well-known theorem \cite{EF1965}.
 Again we strengthen and simplify these results
 and prove the NA property.  Ross  used his results
 to study expressions such as $P(S_i> \max_{j\neq i} S_j)$ and related inequalities, under a special model for $p_{ij}$, given, e.g., in
 \cite{Z1929, BT1952}.

 \subsubsection{\textbf{A simple round-robin tournament}} Huber \cite{H1963} considered the above general model where for any $i \neq j$, $X_{ij}+X_{ji}=1, X_{ij}\in \left\{0,1\right\}$ and $P(X_{ij}=1)=p_{ij}$, and proved that $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ are NLOD by invoking coupling arguments.  He used the latter fact to prove that if $P(X_{1j}=1)=p>1/2$, and $P(X_{ij}=1)=1/2$ for all $1<i \neq j \le n$,  then $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}P(s_1>\max\{s_2,\ldots,s_n\}) \rightarrow 1$; that is, Player 1 achieves the highest score with probability approaching 1.

\subsubsection{\textbf{A chess round-robin tournament with draws}}
\label{sec:chesfoot}
Malinovsky \cite{M2021a} and \cite{M2021b} considered the following round-robin tournament model:
for $i\neq j$, $X_{ij}+X_{ji}=1,\,\,X_{ij}\in \left\{0,\, 1/2,\, 1\right\}$;  this can be seen as a special case of the general model where $F_{ij}$ have the support $\{0,\, 1/2,\, 1\}$.
Malinovsky  considered the case where all players are equally strong, i.e. $P\left(X_{ij}=1\right)=P\left(X_{ji}=1\right)$, and where the probability of a draw, $p=P\left(X_{ij}=1/2\right)$ is common to all games.
He proved NLOD for $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ using log-concavity
of the probability function of $2X_{ij}$, which  requires restricting the range of $p$. He then used NLOD to prove a Poisson approximation to the number of times $S_i$ exceeds a certain threshold. We strengthen his result to NA for all $p$ and more generally for all values of $P\left(X_{ij}=1\right)$ and $P\left(X_{ij}=1/2\right)$.

\subsubsection{\textbf{Random-sum n-player games}}\label{sec:RSum}
The following somewhat abstract description of a tournament will be shown in Section \ref{sec:NNAARR} Corollary \ref{cor:RSNA} to be a generalization of all the above tournament constructions. Consider a sequence of $K$ $n$-player  games, where the random payoff to player $i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ in game $k \in \{1,\ldots,K\}$ is $X_{ki}$ and the components of each of the payoff vectors  ${\bf X}_k=(X_{k1},\ldots,X_{kn})$ are NA, with ${\bf X}_k$'s being independent. In general, the sum of the components of each ${\bf X}_k$ is assumed to be a random variable. Constant-sum (or, equivalently, zero-sum) examples are formed  when the payoff vectors ${\bf X}_k$ have the multinomial or Dirichlet distribution (see \cite{JP1983} Section 3.1 for these and further examples).
An example where the sum of the players' payoffs in each game is random is the case where the vector ${ \bf X}_k$ is jointly normal with correlations $\le 0$ (\cite{JP1983} Section 3.4).

The total payoff to player $i$ in the $K$ games is $S_i=\sum_{k=1}^K X_{ki}$,\,\,$i=1,\ldots,n$. We shall prove in Section \ref{sec:NNAARR} Proposition \ref{prop:rrsum} that $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ are NA.
More generally, one can take $S_i=u_i(X_{1i},\ldots,X_{Ki})$ where  $u_i$ is any increasing function of player $i$'s payoffs.
Note that here, unlike in pairwise duels, several and even  all players may compete in each round. The  limiting distribution of the number of pure Nash equilibria in such random games was studied in Rinott and Scarsini
\cite{RS2000}.

\noindent{\textbf{Two sport examples}}
 Football  (Soccer in the US) provides another example of a round-robin tournament; however, here the sum of scores in each duel is not constant. The winning team is awarded three points,  and if the game ends in a tie, each team receives one point. For a single match the score possibilities for the two teams are $(3, 0), (1, 1)$ and $(0,3)$ with some probabilities, forming an NA distribution for any probabilities. Let the $n$-dimensional vectors ${ \bf X}_{\bf k}$, for ${\bf k}=(ij)$, consist of zeros except for two coordinates $i$ and $j$ corresponding to
the playing teams  $i$ and $j$,
where one of the above three vectors appears.  Then ${\bf S} =\sum_{{\bf k}=(i,j): 1\le i <j \le n}{\bf X}_{{\bf k}}$ represents the vector of total scores of  $n$ teams after one round in which all teams play each other.   It is easy to see that each vector ${\bf X}_{{\bf k}}$ is NA.

Under some assumption (which are an approximation to reality), the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) ranking is another example. It can be seen as a tournament in which the number of points awarded to the winner of each game depends on the tournament and the stage reached. Players' ranks are increasing functions of their total scores.

\subsection{Knockout tournaments}\label{sec:KNT}
Consider a knockout tournament with $n=2^\ell$ players of equal strength; that is, player $i$ defeats player $j$ independently of all other duels with  probability 1/2 for all $1 \le i \neq j \le n$ and the defeated player is eliminated from the tournament.
Let $S_i$ denote the number of games won by player $i$. We could also replace $S_i$ by the prize money of player $i$, which in professional tournaments is usually an increasing function of $S_i$. For a completely random schedule of matches (aka the draw; see \cite{ACKPR2017}),
we show in Section  \ref{sec:knock} that the vector $\textbf{S}=(S_1,\ldots,S_n)$ is NA. Note that in tennis tournaments such as Wimbledon the draw is not completely random as top-seeded players' matches are drawn in a way that prevents them from playing against other top-seeded players in early rounds.   For non-random draws we prove the NOD property via a new preservation result, and we provide a counterexample to the NA property; thus it need not hold for fixed, non-random draws.

\section{Negative association and round-robin tournaments}\label{sec:NNAARR}
The following theorem generalizes Application 3.2(c) of \cite{JP1983}; it implies that the scores $S_1,\ldots, S_n$
in the general round-robin model of Section \ref{sec:grrt} and therefore in all round-robin models of Section \ref{sec:RR} are NA, and therefore NLOD and NUOD, and therefore NOD.

\begin{theorem}\label{th:propro}
	Let $X_1,\ldots,X_n$ be independent random variables  and let $g_i, i=1,2,\ldots,n$ be decreasing functions. Set $Y_1=g_1(X_1), \ldots,Y_n=g_n(X_n)$, and for $j=1,2,\ldots,m$ set
	$$
	S_j=f_j\left(\left\{X_i: i\in A_j\right\},\left\{Y_i: i\in B_j\right\} \right),
	$$
	where $f_j$ are coordinatewise increasing functions of $|A_j|+|B_j|$ variables, and the sets $A_1,\ldots,A_m$ are disjoint subsets of $\left\{1,2,\ldots,n\right\}$, and so are $B_1,\ldots,B_m$. Then the random variables $S_1,\ldots,S_m$ are NA.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} The pair of variables $X,g(X)$ with $g$ decreasing is NA. This is well known; for completeness, here is a simple proof. Let $X^*$ be an independent copy of $X$. For increasing functions $f_1$ and $f_2$, we have
	$$2Cov(f_1(X), f_2(g(X)\,)=
	E\{[f_1(X)-f_1(X^*)\,][f_2(g(X))-f_2(g(X^*))\,]\}
	\le 0\,, $$
	since the expression in the expectation is $\le 0$.
	The pairs $(X_1, Y_1), \ldots,(X_n, Y_n)$ are independent and  each pair is NA. Property $P_7$ of \cite{JP1983} states that the union of independent sets of NA random variables is NA.
	Therefore the random variables $X_1,\ldots,X_n, Y_1, \ldots,Y_n$ are NA.
	Property $P_6$ in \cite{JP1983} states that increasing functions defined on disjoint subsets of a set of NA random variables are NA. Therefore   $S_1,\ldots,S_m$ are NA.
\end{proof}
We now apply Theorem \ref{th:propro} to show the NA property in the general round-robin model of Section \ref{sec:grrt}.

\begin{proposition} \label{propgenrr} Let $X_{ij} \sim F_{ij}$ with support on $[0, r_{ij}]$ be independent  for $1 \le i<j \le n$, where $r_{ij}\ge 0$, and let $X_{ji}=r_{ij}-X_{ij}$.
 Set $S_i=\sum_{j=1, j\neq i}^{n}{X_{ij}},\,\,\, i=1,\ldots,n$. Then $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ are NA.
 More generally, if we set $S_i=u_i(X_{i1},\ldots,X_{i,i-1},X_{i,i+1},\ldots,X_{in})$, \,$i=1,\ldots,n$, where the $u_i$'s are any increasing functions, we again have that the variables $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ are NA.
  \end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
	Instead of a single index we apply Theorem \ref{th:propro} to the independent doubly indexed random variables $X_{ij}$ for $i<j$. Let $g_{ij}(x)=r_{ij}-x$, so that $X_{ji}=g_{ij}(X_{ij})=r_{ij}-X_{ij}$ with $X_{ji}$ playing the role of $Y$'s in Theorem \ref{th:propro}.
	Since the $S_i$'s are sums of disjoint subsets of the variables defined above, the result follows by Theorem \ref{th:propro}, and the same argument holds  with the  functions $u_i$  replacing the sums.
\end{proof}

Since all round-robin models of Section \ref{sec:RR} except for the football example  are special cases of the general round robin model, we have:
\begin{corollary}
The NA property for $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ holds in all the round-robin models in Section \ref{sec:RR}. The NLOD results proved in the literature for these models follow; moreover, NUOD and hence NOD also follow.
\end{corollary}
The football example of Section \ref{sec:RSum} is not a special case of the general round-robin model; here the NA property follows by the argument proving Proposition \ref{propgenrr} by replacing the  functions $g_{ij}$ by $g$ defined by $g(3)=0, g(1)=1$, and $g(0)=3$.

We now consider the random-sum $n$-player games tournament of Section \ref{sec:RSum}.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:rrsum}
Consider a sequence of $K$ $n$-player  games, where the random payoff to player $i \in \{1,\ldots,n\}$ in game $k \in \{1,\ldots,K\}$ is $X_{ki}$ and the components of each payoff vector  ${\bf X}_k=(X_{k1},\ldots,X_{kn})$ are NA, distributed independently. Let $S_i=\sum_{k=1}^K X_{ki}$.
Then $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ are NA. More generally, the variables  $S_i=u_i(X_{1i},\ldots,X_{Ki})$, \,$i=1,\ldots,n$, where the $u_i$'s are any increasing functions, are NA.
\end{proposition}

The above result can be restated in the following lemma, which follows readily from properties of negative association given in \cite{JP1983}.
The same result for positive association, with the same proof, is given in \cite{KR1980} Remark 4.2.
\begin{lemma}\label{le:conNA}
	The convolution of NA vectors is NA.
	\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	Let ${\bf X}_k \in \mathbb{R}^n$ be independent NA vectors and let ${\bf S}=(S_1,\ldots,S_n)=\sum_{k=1}^K \textbf{X}_{k}$.  By Properties $P_7$ and then $P_6$ of \cite{JP1983}, the union of all variables in these vectors is NA and hence $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ are NA since they are increasing functions of disjoint subsets of the above union.
	\end{proof}
The above argument holds also when $S_i=u_i(X_{i1},\ldots,X_{iK})$, thus proving the last part of Proposition \ref{prop:rrsum}.

The next corollary shows that the NA property of the general round-robin model of Section \ref{sec:grrt} and hence in all the models of \ref{sec:RR} follows also from Proposition \ref{prop:rrsum}.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:RSNA}
	The scores $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ of the general round-robin models in Section \ref{sec:grrt} are NA.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof} For clarity we start with the simple case of $n=3$. Define the vectors ${\bf Y}^{12}=(X_{12}, r_{12}-X_{12}, 0),\,\, {\bf Y}^{13}=(X_{13}, 0, r_{13}-X_{13})$, and  ${\bf Y}^{23}=(0, X_{23}, r_{23}-X_{23})$ with $X_{ij}$ of the general round-robin model. It is easy to see that $S_i=\sum_{1 \le k<\ell \le 3} Y^{kl}_i$.

In general, starting with the rewards $X_{ij}$ of the general round-robin model, form  the $K=:n(n-1)/2$ vectors  ${\bf Y}^{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^n$,\,$1 \le i < j \le n$,  whose $i$th component, $Y^{ij}_i$, equals $X_{ij}$, its $j$th component,  $Y^{ij}_j$, equals $r_{ij}-X_{ij}$, and the remaining components equal zero. The components $(Y^{ij}_1,\ldots, Y^{ij}_n)$ of each of the $K$ vectors ${\bf Y}^{ij}$ are obviously NA. Setting
 $$S_i=\sum_{1 \le k < \ell \le n} Y^{kl}_i, \,\,i=1,\ldots,n,$$
 it is easy to see that these $S_i$ coincide with those of the general round-robin model.
 Proposition \ref{prop:rrsum} applied to the K vectors ${\bf Y}^{kl}$ implies that the variables $S_i$ are NA.
\end{proof}

\section{Knockout tournaments}\label{sec:knock}
We now discuss negative dependence in the knockout tournament of Section \ref{sec:KNT}.
\subsection{Knockout tournaments with a random draw}
\begin{proposition}
Consider a 	knockout tournament starting with $n=2^\ell$ players, where player $i$ defeats player $j$ independently of all other duels with  probability 1/2 for all $1 \le i \neq j \le n$; the defeated player is eliminated from the tournament. Let $S_i$ denote the number of games won by player $i$. Assume a completely random schedule (draw) of the matches. Then $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ are NA.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First note that for a given $\ell$,  the vector ${\bf S}=(S_1,\ldots,S_n)$ contains the components $i=0,\ldots, \ell$ with $i <\ell$ appearing $2^{\ell-1-i}$ times, and $\ell$ appearing once. For example, if $n=4$ ($\ell=2$) then there are 2 players with 0 wins, 1 player (the losing finalist) with 1 win, and 1 player  (the champion) with 2 wins. Thus, the vector $\textbf{S}$ is a permutation of the vector $(0,0,1,2)$.
If $n=8$  ($\ell=3$) then $\bf{S}$ is a permutation of the vector $(0,0,0,0,1,1,2,3)$.
Under the assumption of a random draw, all permutations are equally likely as all players play a symmetric role.
Theorem 2.11 of \cite{JP1983} states that if ${\bf X}=(X_1,\ldots,X_n)$ is a random permutation of a given list of real numbers, then $\textbf{X}$ is NA, and the result follows.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Knockout tournaments with a non-random draw}\label{sec:nonRknok}
This section provides a counterexample showing  that for knockout tournaments with a given non-random draw, the scores $S_1,\ldots,S_n$ need not be NA; however, we prove that they are NOD. To obtain the latter result we prove a result on NOD (and NLOD and NUOD) of independent interest.

\noindent \textbf{A counterexample to NA}
 Consider a knockout tournament with $n=4$ players and a draw where in the first round player 1 plays against 2, and 3 against 4. In this case only 8 permutations of $(0,0,1,2)$ are possible and one of the first two coordinates must be positive and so $(0,0,1,2)$ itself is is not a possible outcome.  Consider the functions $f_1(s_1,s_3)$ taking the value 0 everywhere, except that $f_1(0,1)=f_1(0,2)=1$, and $f_2(s_2,s_4)$ which is 0 everywhere, except for $f_2(2,0)=1$. We have $E[f_1(s_1,s_3)f_2(s_2,s_4)]=1/8$, $Ef_1(s_1,s_3)=2/8$, and $Ef_2(s_2,s_4)=1/8$, and \eqref{eq:cov} does not hold. \hspace{11.3cm} $\square$\\
In a tennis tournament, the above arrangement of matches occurs if Players 1 and 3 are top-seeded and the draw prevents them from being matched against each other in the first round.

Finally, we prove that in a knockout
tournament with a non-random schedule, $\textbf{S}=(S_1,\ldots,S_n)$ is NOD. We need the following theorem, which may be of independent interest.
\begin{theorem}\label{th:presNOD} Let ${\bf X}_k = (X_{k1},\ldots,X_{kn})\in \mathbb{R}^n$, $k=1,\ldots,K$ satisfy the following two assumptions.
	\begin{itemize}
		\item[\rm{(\bf i)}]
		For all $k=1,\ldots,K$:\,\,	${\bf X}_k\mid{\bf X}_{k-1}+\ldots+{\bf X}_1$   is NLOD, and
		\item[\rm{(\bf ii)}]
		For all $k$ and $i$: ${X}_{ki}\mid{\bf X}_{k-1}+\ldots+{\bf X}_1\,\,\stackrel{d}{=}\,\,{X}_{ki}\mid{X}_{k-1\,i}+\ldots+{X}_{1i}$\,;
	\end{itemize}

\noindent	that is, the conditional distribution of ${X}_{ki}$ depends only on the $i$th coordinate of the sum of its predecessors. Then ${\bf X}_1+\ldots+{\bf X}_K$ is NLOD. Moreover, the result holds if we replace NLOD by NUOD and hence also by NOD.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} It is well known that a random vector  ${\bf Z}=(Z_1,\ldots,Z_n)$ is NLOD if and only if
	$E\prod_{i=1}^n \phi_i(Z_i) \le \prod_{i=1}^n E\phi_i(Z_i)$ for any nonnegative decreasing functions $\phi_i$ (Theorem 6.G.1 (b) in \cite{SS2007} or Theorem 3.3.16 in \cite{MS2002}).  The proof proceeds by induction, and it is easy to see that it suffices to prove it for $K=2$. Set  ${\bf X}:={\bf X}_1$ and ${\bf Y}:={\bf X}_2$. We have
	$$E\prod_{i=1}^n \phi_i(X_i+Y_i)=E\{E[\,\prod_{i=1}^n \phi_i(X_i+Y_i)\, |\, {\bf X}\,]\}\le E\prod_{i=1}^n E[\phi_i(X_i+Y_i)\mid {\bf X}]= E[\prod_{i=1}^n g_i(X_i)],$$ where $g_i(X_i)=E[ \phi_i(X_i+Y_i)\mid {\bf X}]$, and the inequality holds by Assumption {\rm{(\bf i)}}. By {\rm{(\bf ii)}} we have that $g_i(X_i)$ indeed depends only on $X_i$, and it is obviously nonnegative and decreasing.  By the NLOD property of ${\bf X}$ we have  $$E\prod_{i=1}^n g_i(X_i) \le \prod_{i=1}^n Eg_i(X_i)=\prod_{i=1}^n E\phi_i(X_i+Y_i),$$
	and the result follows. The same proof holds for NUOD with the functions $\phi_i$ taken to be increasing.
\end{proof}

A special case of Theorem \ref{th:presNOD} is the following corollary that for nonnegative vectors follows from Theorem 6.G.19 of \cite{SS2007} and can be obtained from Theorem 1 of \cite{Leh1966} (for vectors in $\mathbb{R}^2$) and from Theorem 4.2 (e) of \cite{Mull19977}.
\begin{corollary}
The sum of independent NOD (NLOD, NUOD) vectors is NOD (NLOD, NUOD).
	\end{corollary}
\begin{proposition}
	For the knockout tournament with a non-random draw, the vector $\textbf{S}=(S_1,\ldots,S _n)$ is NOD.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
	Without loss of generality assume that in the first round player $2i-1$ plays against $2i$ for $i=1,\ldots, n/2$. Let $X_{1j}=0\,\, (1)$ if player $j$
	loses (wins) the first round, $j=1,\ldots,n$. The pairs of variables $X_{1,2i-1},X_{1,2i}$ are independent
	and NOD (in fact they are NA), taking the values $(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$
	with probability 1/2. It follows readily that the 0-1 vector ${\bf X}_1=(X_{11},\ldots,X_{1n})$, whose $j$th coordinate indicates a win or a loss of player $j$ in the first round,  is NOD. Now the second round is similar with only half the players, those who won the first round, where the value 0 is set for players who lost in the first round. Continuing this way, we see that the vector $(S_1,\ldots,S_n)$ is the sum of the 0-1 vectors of all the rounds. These vectors are not independent because the value of 0 in a coordinate of a vector pertaining to a given round must by followed by a zero there in the next round. However, \rm{(\bf i)} and \rm{(\bf ii)} of Theorem \ref{th:presNOD} are easily seen to hold, and the NOD property follows.
\end{proof}

\ack
\noindent We wish to thank the Editors and two referees for helpful comments and suggestions.  We also thank Alfred  M\"{u}ller for suggesting sport examples and references, and for a thoughtful discussion of the paper, and Fabio Spizzichino for many useful comments.

\fund
\noindent The research of YM was supported by grant no. 2020063 from the United States--Israel Binational
Science Foundation (BSF). YR was supported in part by a grant from the Center for Interdisciplinary Data Science Research at the Hebrew University (CIDR).

\competing There were no competing interests to declare that arose during the preparation or publication process of this article.

\noindent

Probability (math.PR); Statistics Theory (math.ST)

On Tournaments and Negative Dependence


On a family of recurrences that includes the Fibonacci and the Narayana recurrences

Abstract: We survey and prove properties a family of recurrences bears in relation to integer representations, compositions, the Pascal triangle, sums of digits, Nim games and Beatty sequences.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro} The Fibonacci sequence $(F_k)_{k\ge0}$ defined by $F_0=0$, $F_1=1$
and $F_{k+2}=F_{k+1}+F_k$ is well known for its various natural and man-made occurrences
and its many arithmetic properties. Perhaps the three most commonly visited cubic generalizations
of the Fibonacci sequence are -- in this order -- the tribonacci, the Narayana and the Padovan sequences.
They all have initial values $0$, $0$ and $1$ and their respective characteristic polynomials are
$x^3-x^2-x-1$, $x^3-x^2-1$ and
$x^3-x-1$. In fact, to each of these cubics we may naturally associate an infinite family
of polynomials and recurrences: With each polynomial $f_q$ of degree $q\ge1$, we associate
its fundamental recurrence, which has $q-1$ zeros followed by a one as initial values and $f_q$
as characteristic polynomial. Thus, we distinguish the three families

\medskip

{\bf 1.} (the tribonacci family) with polynomials $x^q-\sum_{i=0}^{q-1}x^i$, ($q\ge2$).

\medskip

{\bf 2.} (the Narayana family) with $g_q(x):=x^q-x^{q-1}-1$, ($q\ge1$).

\medskip

{\bf 3.} (the Padovan family) with polynomials $x^q-x-1$, ($q\ge2$).

\medskip

 Besides this introduction, the paper contains two more sections.
Section 2 presents six theorems that concern the Narayana family. Proofs are given for
four theorems and references for the two remaining ones. There is little claim of novelty
in those theorems. The interest of the paper lies more
in the adopted perspective, in the combinatorial or counting nature of several proofs,
in the way these theorems are brought and linked together, and in the further research
questions this posture naturally raises. Bits of these
theorems are sometime variously scattered, and we quote references we are aware of as we go
along. However, Theorem \ref{thm:FarDif} and Theorem \ref{thm:Id+}, (3), can be found respectively
in \cite{DeDo, BiSp}, two papers having to do with the same Narayana family of recurrences.

\smallskip

 Given $q\ge1$, we will designate by the letter $G$, or the symbol $G^q$, the fundamental recurrence of $g_q(x)$.
Thus, $G$ has characteristic polynomial $g_q$,
i.e., $G_{k+q}=G_{k+q-1}+G_k$ for all $k\ge0$.  The first few $G$ values $G_0$, $G_1$, etc.,
are $0,\dots,0,1,1,\dots,1,2,\dots$, with $q-1$ initial zeros followed by $q$ ones.
Thus, $G_{q-1}=G_{2q-2}=1$. For $q=1,\,2$ and $3$, we find respectively $G^1_k=2^k$,
$G^2_k=F_k$ and $G^3_k=N_k$, where $F_k$ and $N_k$ are the $k$th Fibonacci and Narayana numbers.
\footnote{Many facts about these three sequences may be found in the OEIS \cite{Slo};
see also \cite{AJ} and our end-of-paper note for historical remarks}

 The theorems we present are better known to hold for the binary and Fibonacci cases.

 The binary and the standard Fibonacci, or Zeckendorf \cite{Zec}, representations
of integers extend to a unique representation into distinct $G$ numbers, for arbitrary $q\ge1$.
We call here such a representation a $q$-{\it representation}.
This is shown in Theorem \ref{thm:Zec+} using a counting argument. We present
the so-called {\it far-difference} representation which uses signed $G$ numbers in Theorem \ref{thm:FarDif}.
Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+}
shows how $G$ numbers occur naturally in counting compositions of integers into sets
of parts related to $q$. Theorem \ref{thm:Id+} proves a choice of three identities.
One identity connects sums of binomial coefficients along lines of Pascal's triangle to
$G$-numbers; another finds the total number of $G$-summands  over all
$q$-representations of all integers up to $G_k$ in terms of a simple weighted
sum of binomial coefficients. Theorem \ref{thm:Nim} proposes simple variants of the game
of Fibonacci Nim when $1\le q\le3$ which bear a common proof and a similar winning
strategy. Kimberling gave an expression involving Fibonacci numbers for all functions composed of several of
the two Beatty sequences $a(n)={\lfloor} n{\alpha}{\rfloor}$ and $b(n)={\lfloor} n{\alpha}^2{\rfloor}$, where ${\alpha}=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$.
This theorem generalizes to all pairs $a(n)={\lfloor} n{\alpha}{\rfloor}$ and $b(n)={\lfloor} n{\alpha}^q{\rfloor}$, where ${\alpha}$ is
the dominant zero of $x^q-x^{q-1}-1$. This is the object of the sixth theorem.

\smallskip

 Section 3 is an epilogue which contains precise open questions, general research projects
and a historical note. In particular, the question of the existence of analogous
proofs and theorems for the tribonacci and the Padovan families is raised.
In fact, we also prove a few theorems in that direction to better explain what we mean.

 The paper is elementary. Concepts are defined along the way.

\section{Six theorems concerning the Narayana family}

\noindent{\bf Definition.} If $U=(u_k)_{k\ge0}$ is an increasing sequence of integers with $u_0=1$, then
the {\it greedy algorithm} produces a unique representation of every positive integer $n$
in the form $\sum_{i\ge0}d_i u_i$, where the digits $d_i$ are nonnegative. If $u_i\le n<u_{i+1}$,
then the algorithm retains $u_i$, that is, it takes the largest term not exceeding $n$ available and
reiterates the process with the difference $n-u_i$. Thus, the next term selected is the unique
$u_j$ such that $u_j\le n-u_i<u_{j+1}$. Say $u_1=3$, $u_2=7$ and $u_3>12$. Then
$12=1\cdot u_2+1\cdot u_1+2\cdot u_0$. We say $u_i$ is a {\it summand}, or a $U$-{\it summand}, of $n$ whenever
$d_i>0$.

 Put $a_k:=G_{2q-2+k}$, for all $k\ge0$, so $A=(a_k)_{k\ge0}$
starts with the last $1$ appearing in the $G$ sequence.
Thus, because of the $q$ consecutive terms of $G$ equal to $1$, we see that $a_k=1+k$, for $0\le k\le q$.

\medskip

\noindent{\bf Lemma 1.} {\it Let $q\ge1$ be an integer. Then the number of binary strings
of length $k$, where at least $q-1$ zeros separate any two ones, is $a_k$.}
\begin{proof} Put $x_k$ for the number of such strings of length $k$. If $1\le k\le q$,
then we have the string of $k$ consecutive $0$'s and $k$
strings with exactly one $1$.
Thus, $x_k=1+k=a_k$. If $k>q$, then there are $x_{k-1}$ strings ending with a $0$ and $x_{k-q}$
ending with a $1$, because in the latter case the $q-1$ penultimate digits must be $0$'s. Thus,
$x_k=x_{k-1}+x_{k-q}$. Hence, $x_k=a_k$ for all $k\ge0$.
\end{proof}

\smallskip

 We are about to show that every positive integer is uniquely representable as a sum of distinct
$A$ numbers, where two consecutive  $A$ numbers are at least $q$ indices apart from
each other. For instance, if $q=3$, $47=41+6+2=N_{13}+N_8+N_5$ and both differences $13-8$ and $8-5$ are
at least $3$. This extends the classical binary and Zeckendorf representations of integers.
We make a definition which will be handy throughout this note.

\medskip

\noindent{\bf Definition and Remark 1.}
A {\it $q$-representation} on $a_0,\dots,a_k$ of an integer $n$ is a sum
$\sum_{i=0}^k{\epsilon}_ia_i$ equal to $n$ where each ${\epsilon}_i$ is $0$ or $1$ and
${\epsilon}_i+{\epsilon}_{i+1}+\dots+{\epsilon}_{i+q-1}\le1$, for all $i\ge0$. We do not require that ${\epsilon}_k$ be $1$.
Note that $q$-representations on $a_0,\dots,a_{k-1}$ are in one-to-one correspondence
with binary strings of length $k$ via $\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}{\epsilon}_ia_i\mapsto({\epsilon}_0,\dots,{\epsilon}_{k-1})$.

\medskip

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Zec+} Every integer $n\ge1$ has a unique representation, obtained
by the greedy algorithm, of the form
$$
\sum_{i\ge0}{\epsilon}_ia_i,\quad {\epsilon}_i\in\{0,1\};\quad{\epsilon}_i+{\epsilon}_{i+1}+\cdots+{\epsilon}_{i+q-1}\le1,\;(i\ge0),
$$ where $a_i=G_{2q-2+i}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $a_k$ be the largest summand in the greedy algorithm representation
of $n$. Suppose $n>a_k$.
Then, $a_j$ being the next summand, we have  $a_j\le n-a_k<a_{k+1}-a_k=a_{k+1-q}$. Hence,
$k-j\ge k-(k-q)=q$. So the greedy
algorithm produces a $q$-representation of $n$ since indices of successive summands
are at least $q$ places apart.

 Our proof shows that all integers in $[0,a_k)$ admit at least one $q$-representation on
$a_0,\dots,a_{k-1}$.  But there are $a_k$ integers in $[0,a_k)$ as many as the number of
$q$-representations on $a_0,\dots,a_{k-1}$ by Lemma 1. This proves the uniqueness of
the $q$-representation of all nonnegative integers.
\end{proof}

 Besides the famous Zeckendorf representation
of which Theorem \ref{thm:Zec+} is a generalization, it was recently discovered \cite{Al}
that if one uses summands that are signed Fibonacci numbers then every
positive integer is uniquely representable into distinct summands where two summands of the same
sign are at least four indices apart and two of distinct signs at least three indices apart.
This was named the far-difference representation. Interestingly,
this theorem generalizes with signed $G$ summands \cite[Theorem 1.6]{DeDo}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:FarDif} Let $q\ge1$. Every integer $n\ge1$ has a unique representation
of the form
$$
\sum_{i\ge0}{\epsilon}_ia_i,\quad {\epsilon}_i\in\{0,\pm1\},
$$ where $a_i=G_{2q-2+i}$ and two summands of the same sign are at least $2q$ indices
apart and two summands of different sign at least $q+1$ apart.
\end{theorem}

\bigskip

 A composition of an integer $n\ge1$ into parts from a set $S$ of positive integers
is an ordered sum of parts from $S$ that sum up to $n$. For instance, if $S$ is the
set of odd integers, then $5$ admits five compositions with parts in $S$ since
$$5=3+1+1=1+3+1=1+1+3=1+1+1+1+1.$$ Denoting the number of compositions
of $n$ with parts in $S$ by $c_n(S)$, we have by the previous example
$c_5(1\; \text{mod }2)=5$. The next theorem is a generalization of three well-known
and often quoted composition results concerning Fibonacci numbers (see for instance
\cite{Slo}, A000045, or \cite[Example 4]{WeHa}).
\begin{align}\begin{split}\label{eq:CompF}
&F_{n+1}=c_n(1\text{ or }2),\\
&F_n=c_n(\text{odd parts}),\\
&F_{n-1}=c_n(\ge2).
\end{split}\end{align}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Comp+}\footnote{The second and third statements of the theorem
have been observed when $q=3$
\cite[A078012]{Slo}; it also has been observed that $c_n(1\text{ or }q)=c_{n+1}\big(1\;(\text{mod }q)\big)$
\cite[A000045]{Slo}} Let $q\ge1$. Compositions of $n\ge1$ into parts satisfy
\begin{eqnarray*}
c_n(1\text{ or }q)&=&G_{n+q-1},\\
c_n\big(1\;(\text{mod }q)\big)&=&G_{n+q-2},\\
c_n(\ge q)&=&G_{n-1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
$$
\text{In particular, }\qquad\quad c_n(1 \text{ or }q)=c_n\big(1\;(\text{mod }q)\big)+c_n(\ge q).
$$
\end{theorem}

 It would be easy to verify the three identities of Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+} using \cite[Theorem 2.1]{WeHa},
which gives a simple characterization of the sets $S$ for which $(c_n(S))_{n\ge1}$ is a linear
recurrence and a simple mean of finding the associated characteristic polynomial. But we proceed differently.
\begin{proof} We recall the bijection between
$q$-representations on $a_0,\dots,a_{k-1}$, i.e., sums $\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}{\epsilon}_ia_i$, and
binary strings $({\epsilon}_0,\dots,{\epsilon}_{k-1})$ seen in Remark 1. Strings $({\epsilon}_0,\dots,{\epsilon}_{k-1})$
are themselves in bijection with the longer strings $({\epsilon}_0,\dots,{\epsilon}_{k-1},0,\dots,0)$, where we
added $(q-1)$ $0$'s to the right of ${\epsilon}_{k-1}$. But these latter strings are in one-to-one
correspondence with compositions of $k+q-1$ into parts $1$ or $q$. Indeed, as we read a binary string
${\epsilon}_0,\dots,{\epsilon}_{k-1},0,\dots,0$, left-to-right, map any $0$ to a part $1$ and any $1$ followed
by $(q-1)$ $0$'s to a part $q$. We obtain a composition of $k+q-1$ into parts $1$ or $q$. This latter
map is clearly reversible. As an illustration we show the correspondence when $q=3$ and $k=4$.

$$
\begin{matrix}
0 &  0 & 0 & 0 & | & 0 & 0\\
1 &  0 & 0 & 0 & | & 0 & 0\\
0 &  1 & 0 & 0 & | & 0 & 0\\
0 &  0 & 1 & 0 & | & 0 & 0\\
0 &  0 & 0 & 1 & | & 0 & 0\\
1 &  0 & 0 & 1 & | & 0 & 0\\
\end{matrix}\quad\longleftrightarrow\quad
\begin{matrix}
1 & + & 1 & + & 1 & + & 1 & + & 1 & +\quad  1\\
3 & + & 1 & + & 1 & + & 1\\
1 & + & 3 & + & 1 & + & 1\\
1 & + & 1 & + & 3 & + & 1\\
1 & + & 1 & + & 1 & + & 3\\
3 & + & 3\\
\end{matrix}
$$ By Lemma 1, the number of $q$-representations on $a_0,\dots,a_{k-1}$ is $a_k$.
Therefore $c_{k+q-1}(1\text{ or }q)=a_k$. Putting $n=k+q-1$, we find that $c_n(1\text{ or }q)=a_{n-q+1}=
G_{n+q-1}$. If $1\le n<q$, then $c_n(1\text{ or }q)=c_n(1)=1=G_{n+q-1}$.

 We now prove the second identity of Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+}.
Splitting the $c_n:=c_n(1\pmod q)$ compositions of $n$
according to their first part, which may be $1,1+q,\dots,1+{\lambda} q$, where ${\lambda}=\lfloor
\frac{n-1}{q}\rfloor$, we see that $c_n=c_{n-1}+c_{n-1-q}+\cdots+c_{n-1-{\lambda} q}$.
Similarly we find that $c_{n+q}=c_{n+q-1}+c_{n-1}+\cdots+c_{n-1-{\lambda} q}$. Subtracting
the former identity from the latter yields
$c_{n+q}=c_{n+q-1}+c_n$. Comparing initial conditions leads to $c_n=G_{n+q-2}$.

 To obtain the number of compositions of $n$ into parts $\ge q$ we establish a bijection between
compositions of $n$ into parts $1\pmod q$ and compositions of $n+q-1$ into parts $\ge q$. This
interesting bijective proof is an extension of the one found by Sills \cite{Sil} between compositions
of $n$ into odd parts and compositions of $n+1$ into parts $\ge2$.

 To a composition $P=(p_1,p_2,\dots,p_s)$ of $n$ into $s$ parts, Sills associates in a one-to-one way
the MacMahon binary sequence, $M=M(P)$, of length $n-1$, where each $p_i$ is successively
transformed into a
string of $p_i-1$ zeros followed by a one, except for the last part $p_s$ transformed into $p_s-1$
zeros only, an extra one being superfluous. For instance, for the composition $P=(3,1,4)$ of $n=8$,
$M(P)=001\,1\,000$. The {\it conjugate}
$P^c$ of $P$ is defined as the composition of $n$ whose MacMahon sequence is $M'$, where $M'$
is obtained from $M$ replacing ones by zeros and zeros by ones.

 Suppose $n=p_1+p_2+\dots+p_s$ where $p_i\equiv1\pmod q$ for each $i$. Put $P=(p_1,\dots,p_s)$
and $M=M(P)$. Then all maximal strings of $0$'s in $M$ have a length a multiple of $q$. Thus, $M'$ has
strings of $1$'s of such lengths as well. For instance, say $q=3$ and $n=1+4+1+7+1$, then
$M=1000110000001$ and $M'=0111\;00111\;111\;0$. This disposition in $M'$ of $0$'s and $1$'s means that
$P^c$ is of the form $(q_1,1,1,q_2,1,1,\dots,q_r,1,1,q_{r+1})$ for some $r\ge1$. In general,
$P^c$ is a succession for $i=1$ to $r$ of a part $q_i$  followed by $q-1$ parts equal to $1$
ending with an additional part $q_{r+1}$.
Thus,
all parts of $P^c$ of indices $2,3,\cdots,q-1,0\pmod q$ are equal to $1$.
In the above example, $P^c=({\bf 2},1,1,{\bf 3},1,1,{\bf 1},1,1,{\bf 2})$. Finally,
transform $P^c$ into $P'=(q'_1,q'_2,\dots,q_{r+1}')$, where $q_i'=q_i+q-1$ for each $i$,
including $i=r+1$. We have
reached a composition of $n+q-1$ in which all parts are $\ge q$. The reverse map is
well-defined. For an example with $q=3$, if $P'$ is the composition $(5,3,4)$ of twelve
into parts all $\ge3$, then $P^c=({\bf3},1,1,{\bf 1},1,1,{\bf2})$, $M'=001\;11111\;0$,
$M=1\,1\,0000001$ and $P=(1,1,7,1)$, a composition of $10=12-(q-1)$ into parts all $1\pmod 3$.
Hence, for all $n\ge1$, $c_{n+q-1}(\ge q)=c_n\big(1\;(\text{mod }q)\big)=G_{n+q-2}$. Thus,
$c_n(\ge q)=G_{n-1}$ since equality holds trivially for $n=1,\dots,q-1$.
\end{proof}

\medskip

\noindent{\bf Remark.} Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+} needs proper interpretation when $q=1$.
Both $c_n\big(1\pmod 1\big)$ and $c_n(\ge 1)$ are simply the number of compositions
of $n$ into positive parts, which is well-known to be $2^{n-1}$. One of the fastest way
to see this, as noted by Sills \cite{Sil}, is that compositions of $n$ are in one-to-one
correspondence with all binary sequences of length $n-1$ via the MacMahon bit sequence.
But $c_n(1 \text{ or }1)$ means that we have two kinds of $1$'s, say blue and red.
Thus, $c_n(1 \text{ or }1)=2^n$, each of the $n$ ones having two possible colorings.

\bigskip

Let $U=(u_k)_{k\ge0}$ be an increasing sequence of integers with $u_0=1$.
If $\sum_{k\ge0}d_k u_k$ is the representation of $n$ obtained by the greedy
algorithm, then we define the {\it sum-of-digit} function, $s_U(n)$,
as the finite sum $\sum_{k\ge0}d_k$. The {\it cumulative} sum-of-digit function,
$S_U$, is defined by $S_U(n):=\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}s_U(j)$. Many authors have studied
in detail the function $S_U(n)$ when $U$ is a linear recurrent sequence
\cite{PeTi,GrTi,DrGa}. Typically, in those studies,
$U$ has a monic characteristic polynomial, $\chi_U$, whose integral coefficients are
nonnegative and satisfy various additional conditions. Most often
hypotheses imply that $\chi_U$ possesses a dominant real zero.
Then we generally obtain that as $n$ tends to infinity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:asy}
S_U(n)=c_Un\log n+O(n),
\end{equation} for some positive constant $c_U$,
where the $O(n)$ term may often be described with great precision.
This is the case, in particular, of geometric sequences, or of the sequence $u_n=F_{n+2}$,
where $F_n$ is the $n$th Fibonacci number \cite{Tro,Del,Coq}. Explicit expressions
for $c_U$ have been given in terms of the coefficients and the dominant real
zero, ${\alpha}$, of $\chi_U$ \cite{GrTi, Ba}. In several papers \cite{Coq, Pih, Ba2, Ba},
the first step in proving (\ref{eq:asy})
begins by observing that $v_k:=S_U(u_k)$ is itself a recurring sequence with characteristic
polynomial $\chi_U^2$. It follows that $v_k=bku_k+O(u_k)$ for some $b>0$. Since $k\log{\alpha}\sim\log u_k$,
(\ref{eq:asy}) holds for $n=u_k$ with $c_U=b/\log{\alpha}$. In the third identity of the next theorem
we will prove that $b_k:=S_A(a_k)$ is recurring with characteristic polynomial
$g_q^2$ for the sequence $A$ of Lemma 1. But we do so using composition results of
Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+}. The first identity of Theorem \ref{thm:Id+} generalizes the
well-known facts that $2^{k+1}-1=1+2+\cdots+2^k$ or that $F_{k+2}-1=F_1+F_2+\cdots+F_k$.
This identity and more of the kind can be found in the paper \cite{BiSp}.
That the Fibonacci numbers pop out of summing diagonals in Pascal's triangle is often perceived
as a surprise\footnote{This observation was made at least as early as 1877 \cite[p. 13]{Lu}}.
On the other hand, every mathematician knows that summing binomial coefficients along the $n$th
line produces $2^n$. Summing along lines of slope $q-1$ produces $G$ numbers, a fact recorded
for instance in \cite{Slo}, entry A003269.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Id+} The identities listed below hold for all $n\ge0$
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{n+q}-1&=&\sum_{k=0}^nG_k,\\
G_{n+q-1}&=&\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/q\rfloor}\binom{n-k(q-1)}k, \\
S_A(G_{n+q-1})&=&\sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/q\rfloor}k\binom{n-k(q-1)}k,
\end{eqnarray} with $A=(a_n)_{n\ge0}=(G_{n+2q-2})_{n\ge0}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The first two identities are easily proved by induction (using the
well-known identity $\binom{n}{k}=\binom{n-1}k+\binom{n-1}{k-1}$ for the second).
However, we provide a proof of (4) which connects it to Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+}.
We saw that $G_{n+q-1}=c_n(1\text{ or }q)$, the number of compositions of $n$ into parts $1$ or $q$.
We may count such compositions by splitting them according to their number of $q$-parts.
A composition containing $k$ parts equal to $q$ contains $k+(n-kq)=n-k(q-1)$ parts.
Since we may place those $k$ $q$'s in $n-k(q-1)$ `positions', there are $\binom{n-k(q-1)}k$ such
compositions. Summing over all $k$'s yields the identity.

  Finally we prove that both terms of identity (5) are annihilated by
$g_q^2$. Early in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+}, we used a bijection -- call it $\varphi$ --
between integers $\ell$ in $[0,a_n)$ and the set $\mathcal C(n+q-1)$ of all compositions
of $n+q-1$ into parts $1$  or $q$ to establish $G_{n+q-1}=c_n(1\text{ or }q)$.
The bijection $\varphi$ was such that if $\varphi(\ell)=c$, then $\sharp q$'s in $c$ $=s(\ell)$. That is,
the number of parts equal to $q$ in $c$ is equal to the number of summands in the $q$-representation
of $\ell$ on $a_0,\dots,a_{n-1}$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:x}
S_A(a_n)=\sum_{c\in\mathcal C(n+q-1)}\sharp q'\text{s in }c.
\end{equation} Put $b_n:=S_A(a_n)$.
Now, compositions of $n+q-1$ ending with a part $1$ account for $b_{n-1}$ of all $q$'s in
the sum on the righthand side of (\ref{eq:x}), while
the $a_{n-q}$ compositions ending with a $q$ account for $a_{n-q}+b_{n-q}$. Indeed, compositions of
$n+q-1$ into parts $1$ or $q$ ending with a part $q$ are in one-to-one correspondence with compositions
of $n-1$ into parts $1$ or $q$. But, by Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+}, there are $G_{(n-1)+q-1}=a_{n-q}$
such compositions. Thus, $b_n=b_{n-1}+
a_{n-q}+b_{n-q}$. That is $g_q(E)\cdot b_{n-q}=a_{n-q}$, where $E$ is the shift operator
$E\cdot y_n=y_{n+1}$. As $(a_{n-q})$ is annihilated by $g_q$, this means that $g_q^2$ annihilates
$(b_n)$.

 Now set $f_n(x):=\sum_{k\ge0}\binom{n-k(q-1)}kx^k$. Because
$\binom{n-k(q-1)}{k}=\binom{n-k(q-1)-1}k+\binom{n-k(q-1)-1}{k-1}$, we see
that
\begin{eqnarray*}
f_n(x)&=&f_{n-1}(x)+x\,\sum_{k\ge1}\binom{n-k(q-1)-1}{k-1}x^{k-1}\\
&=&f_{n-1}(x)+x\,\sum_{k\ge0}\binom{n-q-k(q-1)}{k}x^k
=f_{n-1}(x)+xf_{n-q}(x).
\end{eqnarray*}
Differentiating yields $f_n'=f_{n-1}'+xf_{n-q}'+f_{n-q}$.
Defining $x_n$ as $f_n'(1)$, which is $\sum_{k\ge0}k\binom{n-k(q-1)}k$, we obtain
$$
(E^q-E^{q-1}-I)\cdot x_{n-q}=f_{n-q}(1)\quad\text{ or }\quad g_q^2(E)\cdot x_n=0,
$$ since $f_n(1)=G_{n+q-1}$ is annihilated by $g_q(E)$.
Checking that the $2q$ initial values of the two sequences in (5) coincide (they are zero for
$-q<n<q$ and one for $n=q$) finishes the proof.
\end{proof}

\noindent{\bf Remark.} The constant $c_A$ of (\ref{eq:asy}) has an unusually simple
expression, namely, $c_A=({\alpha} g'_q({\alpha})\log{\alpha})^{-1}$, ${\alpha}>1$ being the dominant zero of $g_q$.
Also, among a whole class of recurrences of order $q$, $c_A$ is minimal for $1\le q\le 3$,
and conjecturally so for all $q$. Moreover, $c_A\sim(\log q)^{-1}$ as $q$ tends to infinity
\cite{Ba}.

\bigskip

 The game of Nim in which two players take turn in removing any number of beans, or tokens,
from one of several heaps was fully analyzed in 1902 \cite{Bou} and its beautiful analysis was
restated in the famous book \cite{HW}. Usually it is agreed that the winner is the one who removes the
last bean (or beans). In one of the variants, called Fibonacci Nim,
there is a unique pile of beans. If a player removes $p$ beans then the next may remove $p'$ beans as
long as $p'\le2p$.
On the very first move any number of beans may be removed, but not the whole pile.
The winning strategy, based on the Zeckendorf representation,
is reported in several books \cite{Kn}, \cite[pp.\ 219--223]{Cor} and \cite[pp.\ 204--206]{TW}.
Many variants of Nim, or Nim-related games, may be found in a small book by Guy, where
the winning strategy for Fibonacci Nim and higher Fibonacci Nim is a project exercise \cite[p.\ 22]{Guy}.
Here we observe that, at least for any $q$, $1\le q\le3$, and under the generalized rules (\ref{eq:Nim})
of Fibonacci Nim:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Nim}
p'\le\begin{cases}qp,&\text{ if }p=1,\text{ or, if }q\text{ is }1\text{ or }2;\\
qp-1,&\text{ if }p\ge2\text{ and }q=3,
\end{cases}
\end{equation} there is a common winning strategy which guarantees the first player, say A, to win
if and only if the initial number of beans is not a $G$ number.

 In the sequel we use the expression $G$-summand to mean an $A$-summand.

\noindent{\bf Lemma 2.} {\it Consider the Fibonacci Nim variant
(\ref{eq:Nim}) above with $1\le q\le3$. Suppose some player, say X, leaves a number
of beans with least $G$-summand, $G_\ell$, and the other player, Y, removes $p$ beans with $p<G_\ell$,
then player X can remove the least $G$-summand of $G_\ell-p$.}
\begin{proof}  Let $G_\ell-p$ and $p$ have the $q$-representations
\begin{eqnarray*}
G_{\ell}-p & = & G_{b_1}+\cdots+G_{b_s},\\
p & = & G_{c_1}+\cdots+G_{c_t},
\end{eqnarray*} where $b_1>\cdots>b_r\ge2q-2$ and $c_1>\cdots>c_t\ge2q-2$. Then
$$
G_\ell=G_{b_1}+\cdots+G_{b_s}+G_{c_1}+\cdots+G_{c_t}.
$$ But, as the RHS of the above identity is not the $q$-representation of $G_\ell$,
we must have $b_s\le c_1+q-1$. We need to verify that X is always in a position to remove $G_{b_s}$
beans. Indeed,
$$
qp\ge qG_{c_1}\ge qG_{b_s-q+1}\ge G_{b_s},
$$ since when $q=2$, $qG_{b_s-q+1}\ge G_{b_s-1}+G_{b_s-2}=G_{b_s}$, and when $q=3$,
$3G_{b_s-2}\ge2G_{b_s-2}+G_{b_s-4}=G_{b_s-1}+G_{b_s-2}\ge G_{b_s}$. The
inequality $3G_{b_s-2}\ge2G_{b_s-2}+G_{b_s-4}$ is strict unless $b_s=6$. But the
sixth Narayana number $N_6=3$ and, when $q=3$, removing three beans is always a legal
move.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:Nim} Suppose $1\le q\le3$. In the Fibonacci Nim variant
(\ref{eq:Nim}) above, the first
player wins if and only if the initial number of beans is not a $G$ number and if,
every time his turn to play comes, he removes a number of beans equal to the least
$G$-summand of the number of beans left.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $n=G_{a_1}+\cdots+G_{a_r}$, $a_1>\cdots>a_r\ge2q-2$, be the $q$-representation of
the number of beans, $n$, in the heap. Assume first $r\ge2$. By hypothesis, player A removes
$G_{a_r}$ beans. Then player B cannot remove $G_{a_{r-1}}$, the next least $G$-summand.
Indeed, using (3) of Theorem \ref{thm:Id+}, we see that
$G_{a_{r-1}}\ge G_{a_r+q}=1+\sum_{k=q-1}^{a_r}G_k=q+1+\sum_{k=2q-1}^{a_r}G_k$,
which is $q+1$ in case $a_r=2q-2$ and $G_{a_r}=1$. If $G_{a_r}>1$, then
$$
G_{a_r+q}=G_{a_r+q-1}+G_{a_r}=\begin{cases}2G_{a_r},&\text{ if }q=1;\\
2G_{a_r}+G_{a_r-1},&\text{ if }q=2;\\
2G_{a_r}+G_{a_r-1}+G_{a_r-2},&\text{ if }q=3,
\end{cases}
$$ where, for $q=3$, we used $G_{a_r+2}=G_{a_r+1}+G_{a_r-1}=G_{a_r}+G_{a_r-1}+G_{a_r-2}$.
Hence,
$$
G_{a_{r-1}}\ge\begin{cases}qG_{a_r}+1,&\text{ if }q=1\text{ or }2;\\
3G_{a_r},&\text{ if }q=3,
\end{cases}
$$ where we used $G_{a_r-1}+G_{a_r-2}\ge G_{a_r-1}+G_{a_r-3}=G_{a_r}$ in the case $q=3$.

 Therefore B must remove $p$ beans with $p<G_{a_{r-1}}$. But, by Lemma 2, A can now remove the least
$G$-summand in $G_{a_{r-1}}-p$.

 Hence, with this strategy A is constantly in a position to play. As beans
are diminishing at every turn, B must eventually loose.

 Suppose now $r=1$, i.e., $n=G_{\ell}$ with $\ell\ge 2q-1$
so that $n>1$. By the rules of the game, A cannot remove all $n$ beans.
Moreover, by Lemma 2, B will be in a position to play the winning strategy, i.e.,
to remove the least $G$-summand left when his turn to play comes.
\end{proof}

\noindent{\bf Remark.} The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:Nim} shows the stability of the strategy
under a small variation of the rules in (\ref{eq:Nim}), namely
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mNim}
p'\le\begin{cases}qp-(q-1),&\text{ if }p\ge2;\\
qp, &\text{ if }p=1.
\end{cases}
\end{equation} The modified rule (\ref{eq:mNim}) has the formal advantage of being the
same for the three values of $q\in\{1,2,3\}$.
However, as a game, the rules (\ref{eq:Nim}) are simpler.

\medskip

 The Wythoff game is a two-pile-of-tokens variant of the game of Nim, where a player either
removes as many tokens from one of the two heaps, or removes the same number from both heaps.
You win if you can leave your opponent with a `position' $\big(a(n),b(n)\big)$, where $a(n)={\lfloor} n{\alpha}{\rfloor}$,
and $b(n)={\lfloor} n{\alpha}^2{\rfloor}$ with ${\alpha}$ the Golden ratio, i.e., the dominant zero of $x^2-x-1$.
The two sequences $a(n)$ and $b(n)$ form a complementary pair of Beatty sequences: their ranges
partition the set of natural numbers. This property carries over to all pairs $\big(a(n)={\lfloor} n{\alpha}{\rfloor},
b(n)={\lfloor} n{\alpha}^q{\rfloor}\big)$, if ${\alpha}$ is the dominant zero of $x^q-x-1$, $(q\ge2)$.

 If $f$ is a function composed of $x$ $a$-functions and $y$ $b$-functions, then, when $q=2$,
Kimberling \cite{Ki} had proved that for all $n\ge1$
$$
f(n)=F_{x+2y-2}\,a(n)+F_{x+2y-1}\,b(n)-e_f,
$$ where $e_f$ is a nonnegative constant that depends on $f$.

 This result has received a generalization to all $q\ge2$ \cite[Theorem 27]{Ba1}, where
coefficients of $a(n)$ and $b(n)$ are instead $G$ numbers. Here, we only state the theorem
for the case $q=3$, where Narayana numbers come up \cite[Theorem 12]{Ba1}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:BeattyN} Let $f=\ell_1\circ\ell_2\circ\dots\circ\ell_s$, $(s\ge1)$,
be a composite function of $x$ $a$'s and $y$ $b$'s, $x+y=s$. Then,
$$
f(n)=N_{x+3y-2}\,a(n)+N_{x+3y}\,b(n)-N_{x+3y-3}\,n-e_f(n),
$$ where $e_f$ is a nonnegative bounded integral function of $n$ that depends on $f$.
\end{theorem}

\section{Epilogue: Questions, comments and a historic note}

\noindent{\bf Questions.}  We wrote on the spur a few questions of non-appraised difficulty
as food for further thought.

\medskip

{\bf 1.} Is there a simple explicit map, or combinatorial argument, that proves the
identity $c_n(1 \text{ or }q)=c_n\big(1\pmod q\big)+c_n(\ge q)$?
(Note that a composition of $n$ may be made of parts that are all both $\ge q$ and $1\pmod q$).

\medskip

{\bf 2.} Is there a simple Nim game whose winning strategy corresponds to removing the least
$G$-summand when the initial number of beans is not a $G$ number for all $q\ge1$?

\medskip

{\bf 3.} Note that $13=F_7=N_{10}$ is both a Fibonacci and a Narayana number.
Is it the largest instance? Since $8$ and $144$ are the only nontrivial
Fibonacci powers \cite{Bug},  $8$ is the largest instance of a power of two and a Fibonacci.
Let $G'$ represent the $G$-sequence
corresponding to $q'=q+1$. Then $G_3=G'_6=8$, if $q=1$. If $q=2$, then $G_7=G'_{10}=13$.
If $q=3$, then $G_{11}=G'_{14}=19$. Is it generally true that $G_{4q-1}=G'_{4q+2}$\footnote{This part is
true as $G_{3q-3+i}=q+i(i+1)/2$ for all $i$, $1\le i\le q+1$. So $G_{4q-1}=G_{4q-2}+G_{3q-1}=
(q^2+7q+8)/2$, which is $G'_{4q+2}=G'_{4q'-2}=q'+(q'+1)(q'+2)/2$.}? If so, is
it the largest instance of an integer both a $G$ and a $G'$ number?

\medskip

{\bf 4.} Is it possible to produce analogs of our theorems and of their proofs for other families of
recurrences, and, in particular, for the tribonacci and the Padovan families?

\medskip

 For instance, let $(p_n)_{n\ge0}$ be the generalized Padovan sequence, i.e., the fundamental
recurrence associated with $x^q-x-1$, ($q\ge2$). There is a generalization of
(\ref{eq:CompF}) and an analog of Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+}, namely

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:CompP} We have\footnote{At least the last two statements of Theorem \ref{thm:CompP}
have been observed when $q=3$ \cite[A000931]{Slo}}
$$
p_n=\begin{cases} c_{n-q+1}(q-1\text{ or }q),&(n\ge q),\\
c_n\big(q-1\pmod q\big),&\\
c_{n+1}\big(1\pmod {q-1}\text{ and }\not=1).
\end{cases}$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} There are $c_{n-q+1}$ and $c_{n-q}$ compositions of $n\ge q$ into parts $q-1$ or $q$
that end, respectively, with a part $q-1$ and with a part $q$. Hence, $c_n=c_{n-q+1}+c_{n-q}$.
Since $c_i=0=p_{q-1+i}$ for $i=1,\dots,q-2$
and $c_{q-1}=p_{2q-2}=1$ and $c_q=p_{2q-1}=1$, the first statement of the theorem holds. By similar
reasoning, if $c_n$ is the number of compositions of $n$ into parts $q-1$ mod $q$, we find that
$c_{n+q}-c_n=(c_{n+1}+c_{n-q+1}+c_{n-2q+1}+\dots)-(c_{n-q+1}+c_{n-2q+1}+\dots)$. Thus, $c_{n+q}=c_{n+1}+c_n$.
If the $c_n$'s are compositions of $n$ into parts $q$, $2q-1$, $3q-2,\dots$, then $c_{n+q}-c_{n+1}=(c_n+c_{n-q+1}+c_{n-2q+2}+\dots)-
(c_{n-q+1}+c_{n-2q+2}+\dots)$, implying again that $c_{n+q}=c_{n+1}+c_n$. Checking that initial conditions match completes the
proof.
\end{proof}
{\bf 5.} But can one find an explicit bijection between the set of
compositions of $n$ into parts $q-1\pmod q$ and
compositions of $n+1$ into parts at least $q$ and $1$ (mod $q-1$), as Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+} did
between compositions of $n$ into parts $1$ mod $q$ and compositions of $n+q-1$ into parts $\ge q$?

\medskip

{\bf 6.} As $p_{n+q-1}=p_n+p_{n-1}$, we see from Theorem \ref{thm:CompP} that $c_n(q-1\text{ or }q)=c_n(q-1\pmod q)
+c_n(1\pmod{q-1}\text{ and }\not=1)$ and raise, as in question {\bf 1.}, the question of the existence of a combinatorial
explanation of this identity.

\medskip

\noindent{\bf Comments and further results.}  We make some additional observations and comments with
regard to the fourth question aforementioned.

 There is a theorem corresponding to Theorem \ref{thm:Zec+} for the tribonacci family \cite[p. 112]{Fr}, \cite{Le}.
The proof in \cite{Le} was also a counting proof, but it can be replaced by a proof entirely similar
to the one we gave for Theorem \ref{thm:Zec+}: Say $q\ge2$ and $(T_n)$ is the fundamental recurrence
associated with $x^q-x^{q-1}-\dots-x-1$, i.e., $(T_n)$ is the generalized tribonacci sequence.
Define $a_k=T_{k+q}$
for all integers $k$. Thus, $a_0=1$, $a_1=2$ and $(a_k)$ is increasing for nonnegative $k$. A lemma analogous
to Lemma 1 says that the number, $b_k$, of binary strings of length $k$, with no $q$ consecutive $1$'s,
is $a_k$.
Such strings with $k\ge q$ have to end by exactly one of $0$, $01$, $011$, $\dots$,
$01\dots1$ ($q-1$ $1$'s) and thus
one sees that $(b_k)$ satisfies the same recursion as $(a_k)$. These strings are in one-to-one correspondence
with (tribonacci) $q$-representations $\sum_{i=0}^{k-1}{\epsilon}_ia_i$ on $a_0,\dots,a_{k-1}$, where the ${\epsilon}_i$'s are
again $0$ or $1$. The greedy algorithm applied to an integer $n\in[0,a_k)$ produces a tribonacci
$q$-representation on $a_0,\dots,a_{k-1}$. Indeed, if $a_i<n<a_{i+1}$, then the largest summand
$a_j$ in $n-a_i$ satisfies $j<i$,
or else $n\ge2a_i=a_i+(a_{i-1}+\dots+a_{i-q})=a_{i+1}+a_{i-q}\ge a_{i+1}$, as $a_{i-q}\ge0$, which
would contradict $n<a_{i+1}$. If the greedy algorithm produces successively $a_i,a_{i-1},\dots,a_{i-(q-2)}$,
then the next summand cannot be $a_{i-q+1}$, because it would again mean that
$n\ge a_i+a_{i-1}+\dots+a_{i-q+1}=a_{i+1}$. Therefore, we can deduce the uniqueness of the tribonacci
$q$-representation for all positive integers using the same reasoning as in Theorem \ref{thm:Zec+}.
This can be pursued into at least the first part of Theorem \ref{thm:Comp+} and its proof: We had proved using a bijective
argument that $c_n(1\text{ or }q)=G_{n+q-1}$. Here we find that $c_n(\le q)=T_{n+q-1}$ by adding a $0$
upfront each of the $a_n$ binary strings ${\epsilon}_0,\dots,{\epsilon}_{n-1}$ with no $q$ consecutive $1$'s.
Then we bijectively
map those augmented strings into the set of compositions of $n+1$ reading a string left-to-right and
mapping $0$ to a part $1$, $01$ to a part $2$ and so on up to strings $01\dots1$ ($q-1$ ones) which
are mapped to a part $q$. We deduce that $c_{n+1}(\le q)=a_n=T_{n+q}$ yielding the result.

\smallskip

 In fact, there is, for the tribonacci family, a partial analog of Theorems \ref{thm:Comp+} and \ref{thm:CompP}, i.e.,

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:CompT} We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
T_n&=&c_{n-q+1}(1,2,\dots,q),\;(n\ge q),\\
U_n&=&c_n\big(1,2,\dots,q-1\pmod q\big)\;(n\ge1),
\end{eqnarray*} where $(U_n)$ satisfies the generalized tribonacci recursion, i.e., $U_{n+q}=U_{n+q-1}+U_{n+q-2}+
\dots+U_n$, $U_0=0$ and $U_i=2^{i-1}$, $i=1,2,\dots,q-1$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} To establish the second identity, one may proceed as in Theorem \ref{thm:CompP}.
Let $c_n$ stands for $c_n\big(1,2,\dots,q-1\pmod q\big)$. Consider $c_{n+q}-c_n=(c_{n+q-1}+c_{n+q-2}+
\dots+c_{n+1}+c_{n-1}+\dots+c_{n-q+1}+c_{n-q-1}+\dots)-
(c_{n-1}+\dots+c_{n-q+1}+c_{n-q-1}+\dots)$. Hence, $c_{n+q}=c_{n+q-1}+c_{n+q-2}+\dots+c_{n+1}+c_n$.
\end{proof}

 The second identity of Theorem \ref{thm:CompT} was proved for $q=3$ and conjectured
to hold for all $q\ge2$ in \cite{Ro}. Note that for $q=2$, $U_n=F_n$.

\smallskip

Also, Duch\^ene and Rigo \cite{DuRi} proposed a three-pile-of-tokens
variant of Wythoff's game, where the tribonacci rather than the
Fibonacci word arises in the winning strategy.

\medskip

\noindent{\bf Historic note.}  Beginning in  1844 the $G$-sequence for $q=2$ was referred to as the
{\it Lam\'e series}, because Lam\'e had used these numbers to give an upper bound on the number of steps the
euclidean algorithm took to find the greatest common divisor of two integers, until
the French mathematician, \'Edouard Lucas, on a voyage to Italy, found them in a copy
of the Liber Abbaci of Leonardo de Pisa, alias Fibonacci, and referred to them, starting in 1876 and
henceforth, as the Fibonacci series.
In the Liber Abbaci they modelled the growth rate of a population of rabbits. Amusingly, it
was recently discovered \cite{AJ} that the $G$-sequence for $q=3$ modelled the
growth of a population of cows in some writings of Narayana, a 14th-century prominent
Indian mathematician,
who wrote in Sanskrit. In Narayana's model, it took two years, i.e., two generations,
for a newborn cow, say
$c_0$, to become a mature cow, $C$, which would then live and reproduce one veal every year
forever onwards. Starting with a newborn $c_0$ we represent below and symbolically the
herd's population for the first few years
$$
{\rm c_0,\; c_1,\; C,\; Cc_0,\; Cc_0c_1,\; Cc_0c_1C,\; Cc_0c_1CCc_0,\;
Cc_0c_1CCc_0Cc_0c_1,\cdots}
$$  where $c_0$, $c_1$ and $C$ from one year to the next become respectively $c_1$, $C$
and $Cc_0$. We see that the number of cows at one generation is equal to that of the previous
generation plus the number of newborns. But the number of newborns is precisely the number of
cows born at least three generations before. Therefore, $N_{n+3}=N_{n+2}+N_n$.