Finally, we’re ready to go back to the problem in the appendix.

**The problem: **Sift. This is problem GP6 in the appendix.

**The description: **Suppose we have some set X, with collections of subsets of X A and B. The sets A and B have no elements in common. Players take turns choosing elements from X until every subset in A (in which case player 2 wins) or every subset in B has a chosen element (in which case player 1 wins).

We do need to have a rule for what happens if an element is chosen that makes both players lose (because the element chosen intersects with the last subsets in both A and B). In this case, the player who made the move loses.

**Example: **Suppose X was {1,2,3,4,5,6}. A = {{1,2}, {3,4}, {5,6}} and B = {{1,2,3}, {4,5,6}}. Then A could force a win by choosing element 3. This intersects the second set in A, and the second set in B. So the current “live” subsets are:

A = {{1,2}, {5,6}}

B = {{1,2,3}}

Player B needs to pick 5 or 6, or they immediately lose. But once that happens, player A can choose 3, which means the set of elements chosen {3,4,5} (or {3,4,6}) intersects with every set in B, but not every set in A, so A wins.

**Reduction: ** The Shaefer paper reduces from Avoidance Truth Assignment, which means we start with a CNF formula with no negated literals. Let’s assume the formula has m clauses and n variables. For each clause k define the set S_{k} to be the indices of the variables in clause k. (So if clause 1 was: x_{2 }∨ x_{4} ∨ x_{7}, then S_{1} = {2,4,7}). Let “Set 1” = all of the S_{k} sets of even length, and “Set 2” = all of the S_{k} sets of odd length. If n is even, give player 1 “Set 1” and player 2 “Set 2”. If n is odd, reverse the allocation.

Notice that “Set 1” is the set of all clauses with an even number of distinct variables in them, and “Set 2” is the set of all clauses with an odd number of distinct variables in them. Recall from our discussion of the Avoidance Truth Assignment problem that the player whose turn it was could win that game if we had an even number of unplayed variables, and an odd number of unplayed variables in every clause (or an odd number of unplayed variables, with an even number in every clause). What our “Set 1” and “Set 2” constructions are doing is listing out those clauses and assigning them to each player. Once one set runs out, then we have the winning case for one of the 2 players. So this construction of Sift is equivalent to the original Avoidance problem.

**Difficulty: **8. I wish there was a good proof of this odd/even claim he makes. I don’t 100% buy his intuitive argument.