arxiv: v2 [math.co] 16 Dec 2014

Transcription

1 SORTING PERMUTATIONS: GAMES, GENOMES, AND CYCLES K.L.M. ADAMYK, E. HOLMES, G.R. MAYFIELD, D.J. MORITZ, M. SCHEEPERS, B.E. TENNER, AND H.C. WAUCK arxiv: v2 [math.co] 16 Dec 2014 Abstract. It has been postulated that the decryption of micronuclear precursors of somatic genes in certain ciliate species occurs by constrained reversals and block interchanges. Not all permutations are sortable by these constrained sorting operations. We find a linear time criterion for determining which permutations are sortable by constrained block interchanges. For permutations not sortable by constrained block interchanges, we find a linear time criterion for determining which permutations are the final results of attempted sorting by constrained block interchanges. The corresponding theory for constrained reversals appears more complicated and we present partial results for this operation. The constrained sorting operations suggest natural two-player games. By a classical theorem of Zermelo, these games are determined that is, some player has a winning strategy. We consider the decision problem of determining which player has a winning strategy in a specific instance of a game. For normal play and misere play games based on constrained block interchanges, we give a complete linear time solution. For another class of games, we give partial results for the constrained block interchange based games. A repetition-free list of the first n positive integers is a permutation of {1,...,n}. A procedure that rewrites this list in increasing order has sorted the permutation. If a specified operation successfully sorts a permutation, then we say that the permutation is sortable by that operation. The mathematical study of permutation sorting has a long history. Popular sorting operations include transpositions [1], block interchanges [2], and reversals [4, 5]. For the versions of these sorting operations that have been studied in prior literature, all permutations proved sortable. One might then address the efficiency with which a permutation can be sorted by these operations. The emergence of genome sequencing revealed that the genomes of many species are related through the reversals and block interchanges mentioned above. This fact is creating an arena of applications of mathematical findings and techniques that were developed in the study of permutation sorting. Conversely, observations of genome remodeling strategies that occur in nature are inspiring new mathematical problems regarding permutation sorting. Our paper is in the latter category. In some species of ciliates, which are single celled organisms, certain permutation sorting operations occur routinely as part of developmental events [8]. The current mathematical model for this process postulates context restricted versions of block interchange (denoted cds) and of reversal (denoted cdr) as the operations that perform the necessary sorting [9]. Mathematical experimentation reveals that not all permutations are sortable by cds and cdr Mathematics Subject Classification. 05A05, 68P10, 91A46, 97A20, 05E15, 20B99, 92-08, 92D15. Key words and phrases. Permutation sorting, context directed reversals, context directed block interchanges, normal play game, misere game, fixed point sorting game. Research partially supported by a Simons Foundation Collaboration Grant for Mathematicians. 1

2 2 ADAMYK, HOLMES, MAYFIELD, MORITZ, SCHEEPERS, TENNER, AND WAUCK This raises the question of which permutations are cds- and cdr-sortable. An efficiently testable criterion that characterizes such sortable permutations would provide a tool to test the current mathematical sorting model for ciliates. Specifically, should a permutation not meeting the criterion appear in ciliates, and be sorted during the developmental events, this would indicate a deficiency in the mathematical model. On the other hand, such a criterion may be a tool for classifying the sortable permutations in terms of complexity considerations, and thus shed light on why certain permutations occur more commonly than others in the extant organisms, and shed light on the evolutionary history of the ciliate sorting mechanism. In Theorem 2.14 of this paper, we give an efficiently verifiable criterion that characterizes the set of cds-sortable permutations. For the sorting operation cdr we must consider signed permutations. Signed permutations generalize classical permutations by introducing a sign, + or, to each symbol. In Theorem 4.15, we derive an efficiently verifiable necessary condition for a signed permutation to be cdr-sortable. Some permutations can be sorted in multiple ways, and for some there are both successful and unsuccessful sorting strategies. This raises several questions, including: How can a successful sorting strategy be efficiently identified? Among successful strategies, are some more efficient than others? Which permutations have both successful and unsuccessful sorting strategies? Our examination of these phenomena led to the definition of two-person combinatorial games that are of independent interest. We shall call the two players player ONE and player TWO. By a classical theorem of Zermelo [11], our games are all determined, meaning that one of the two players has a winning strategy. We study the fundamental problem of finding an efficient characterization of the permutations for which player ONE has a winning strategy. The paper is organized as follows: In Section 1 we introduce fundamental concepts underlying much of our study, namely pointers and signed permutations. In Section 2, we briefly review sorting by transpositions and by block interchanges that was studied in the past by Christie [2], among others. Then we introduce context directed swaps, denoted cds, which are a restricted version of the block interchange operation. We characterize the permutations sortable by applications of cds in Theorem 2.14, using a criterion that is related to the cycle graph of a permutation introduced by Bafna and Pevzner [1]. In Section 3, we explore results and objects related to cds-sortability, including the notion of the strategic pile of a permutation, which is used to characterize the cds fixed points of a permutation (Theorem 3.16). In Theorem 3.17, we combine a technique of Christie with the characterization of Theorem 2.14 to give a polynomial time algorithm for determining the constrained block interchange distance to a fixed point for this sorting operation. In Section 4, we briefly review sorting by reversals and introduce the sorting operation cdr. We then describe a model that is related to the cycle graph of a permutation as introduced by Bafna and Pevzner [1], and Hannenhalli and Pevzner s breakpoint graph of a signed permutation [5]. We will use this object to give a necessary condition for cdr-sortability. In Section 5, we introduce certain combinatorial games. Theorem 5.3 identifies a class of permutations for which ONE has a winning strategy in permutation sorting games based on cds, and a class of permutations for which TWO has a winning strategy in permutation sorting games based on cds. The notion of the strategic pile identified for cds does not apply directly to cdr, which complicates the study of sortability and of games based on cdr. Finally, we conclude with a list of open questions raised by our investigation.

3 SORTING PERMUTATIONS: GAMES, GENOMES, AND CYCLES 3 1. Permutations, signed permutations, and pointers For a positive integer n the set S n consists of all permutations of {1,...,n}. This set is known as the symmetric group, or as the finite Coxeter group of type A. There are many common ways to denote permutations in the literature. For the most part, we will use inverse image notation, in which π S n would be written as π = [π 1 (1) π 1 (2) π 1 (n)]. In Section 2, we will also need to use cycle notation, in which a permutation is written as a product of disjoint cycles of the form (1 π(1) π 2 (1) ), and so on. Example 1.1. The permutation π S 8 whose inverse image notation is can be written in cycle notation as π = [ ] π = (1372)(485)(6). The finite Coxeter group of type B consists of signed permutations, and we will denote these sets bys ± n. Signedpermutations arebijections π on{±1,...,±n} thatsatisfy π( i) = π(i) for all i. Note that this requirement means that S ± n = 2n n!, and that a signed permutation π S ± n can be completely described by the inverse image notation π = [π 1 (1) π 1 (2) π 1 (n)]. Thus we can say that such a π is a signed permutation of n letters. The cds and cdr sorting operations will be defined in terms of pointers in a string. Consider a (signed or unsigned) permutation π = [a 1 a n ], and recall that a i {1,...,n} for each i. To each a i {±1,±n}, we associate two pointers, while a i {±1} gets only a right pointer and a i {±n} gets only a left pointer. The left pointer is { (a i 1,a i ) if a i > 1, and λ(a i ) = ( a i +1, a i ) if a i < 0, and the right pointer is ρ(a i ) = { (a i,a i +1) if 0 < a i < n, and ( a i, a i 1) if a i < 0. The entries of a pointer are always positive integers. We shall call a pointer q = (i+1,i) the negative of the pointer p = (i,i+1), and write q = p to denote this relationship between p and q. Note that each pointer appears twice among the 2n 2 pointers in a permutation of S n or (possibly in its negative version) S ± n. Example 1.2. In the signed permutation π = [ ], the entry 5 has left pointer (4,5), and no right pointer. Similarly the entry 3 has left pointer (4,3) and right pointer (3,2). Here is π with all pointers marked: π = [ (4,5) 5 (4,3) 3 (3,2) (1,2) 2 (2,3) (5,4) 4 (4,3) 1 (1,2) ]. Definition 1.3. Fix a (signed or unsigned) permutation π = [a 1 a n ], and i < n. We call a i an adjacency of π if a i +1 = a i+1, and let adj(π) denote the number of adjacencies in π. Note that an unsigned permutation is sorted if every position is an adjacency.

4 4 ADAMYK, HOLMES, MAYFIELD, MORITZ, SCHEEPERS, TENNER, AND WAUCK Definition 1.4. A permutation with no adjacencies is reduced. For the sorting operations considered in this paper, sorting a permutation with adjacencies can be faithfully simulated by sorting a well-defined reduced permutation of smaller size, constructed as follows. Definition 1.5. Consider a (signed or unsigned) permutation π = [a 1 a n ]. If π has no adjacencies, then let R(π) = π. Otherwise, let i be minimal such that a i is an adjacency of π. Define R(π) to be the (signed or unsigned, respectively) permutation of n 1 letters for which R(π) = [b 1 b n 1 ] is in the same relative order as [a 1 a i â i+1 a i+2 a n ], and for which b j a j > 0 for all j i and b j a j+1 > 0 for all j > i. This R is the stepwise reduction operator. Example 1.6. Let π = [ ]. Then R(π) = [ ]. Let π 0 = π and define π i+1 = R(π i ). Then adj(π i+1 ) < adj(π i ). Since adj can only take nonnegative values, the procedure must terminate. At that point, R(π i ) = π i. In other words, the permutation π i is reduced. Definition 1.7. Let π be a permutation and define FR(π) to be the reduced permutation obtained by iterating the operator R. This FR is the full reduction operator. 2. Context directed block swaps In this section, we consider unsigned permutations; that is, elements of S n. Christie [2] considers block interchanges in which any two disjoint segments of entries in a permutation canbeinterchanged. Anelement ofs n canalways be transformedto apermutation thatfixes either 1 or n, using one such block interchange. Thus we may focus on these permutations. For such a π that is not the identity, Christie defines the minimal block interchange as follows. There are letters x < y with y appearing to the left of x in the inverse image notation of π. Fix the least such x, and then fix the largest y appearing to its left. Then π has the form [1 (x 1) α y β x γ (y +1) ], where x 1, x, y, and y+1 are symbols, and α, β, and γ are substrings. The minimal block interchange for π swaps the segments αy and xγ, producing [1 (x 1) x γ β α y (y +1) ]. The context directed block swap operation, denoted cds, is defined in terms of the pointers described in Section 1. Definition 2.1. Consider a permutation π in which the pointers p and q appear in the order p q p q. The cds operation on π with context {p,q} swaps the two blocks of letters that are flanked on the left by p and on the right by q. For p = (x,x+1) and q = (y,y +1), the cds operation on a permutation π with context {p,q} has one of the forms depicted in Table 1. Of course, there are also permutations to which cds cannot be applied. Definition 2.2. Suppose that ϕ is a permutation in which there are no pointers p and q that appear in ϕ as p q p q. Then ϕ is a fixed point of cds. Note that Christie s minimal block interchange appears in the first row of Table 1.

5 SORTING PERMUTATIONS: GAMES, GENOMES, AND CYCLES 5 Result of cds with context Permutation π {(x,x+1),(y,y+1)} [ x α y β (x+1) γ (y +1) ] [ x (x+1) γ β α y (y +1) ] [ x α (y +1) β (x+1) γ y ] [ x (x+1) γ y (y +1) β α ] [ (x+1) α y β x γ (y +1) ] [ γ β x (x+1) α y (y +1) ] [ (x+1) α (y +1) β x γ y ] [ γ y (y +1) β x (x+1) α ] Table 1. cds operation with context {(x,x+1),(y,y+1)}. Lemma 2.3 ([2, Lemma 1]). Each π S n that is not a cds fixed point has a pair of pointers that support a minimal block interchange. This yields the following characterization of cds fixed points. Corollary 2.4. The cds fixed points in S n are the permutations [k (k+1) n 1 (k 1)] for k 1. Put another way, these elements form the cyclic subgroup of S n generated by [2 3 n 1] = (1 n n 1 3 2). We can now give the main definition related to cds. Definition 2.5. An element of S n is cds-sortable if application of some sequence of cds operations terminates in the identity element e S n. Not every permutation is cds-sortable. On the other hand, should the model for ciliate micronuclear decryption be correct, each unsigned permutation representing a micronuclear scrambled gene in a ciliate would be cds-sortable. The first decision problem we treat is as follows, where we use the format of [3] in stating decision problems. D.1 cds-sortability: INSTANCE: A permutation π. QUESTION: Is π cds-sortable? The reduction operation introduced in Definition 1.7 is important for establishing various properties of the cds operation on permutations. Together, these observations yield the following. Theorem 2.6 (cds Reduction). A permutation π is cds-sortable if and only if its full reduction FR(π) is cds-sortable. Proof. Given a permutation π S n and its collection of left and right pointers, the reduction operation can be used to compute the left and right pointers of R(π) S n 1. Similarly, for each pointer p of FR(π), there is a unique pointer p of π such that p = FR(p). Moreover, for each pointer pair {p,q} of π there is a unique pointer pair {FR(p),FR(q)} of R(π) such that (1) the pointers p and q occur as p q p q in π if and only if FR(p) and FR(q) occur as FR(p) FR(q) FR(p) FR(q) in R(π), and (2) first applying cds to π with context {p,q}and then applying a full reduction produces the same permutation as first applying cds to FR(π) with context {FR(p), FR(q)} and then applying a full reduction. This proves the theorem.

6 6 ADAMYK, HOLMES, MAYFIELD, MORITZ, SCHEEPERS, TENNER, AND WAUCK Towards characterizing the cds-sortable elements of S n, we will need to talk about the cycle notation of a specific permutation. Definition 2.7. Given π S n with inverse image notation π = [a 1 a 2 a n ], define two permutations on the set {0,1,...,n+1}, written in cycle notation, as follows: X = (0 1 2 n (n+1)) and Y π = ((n+1) a n a n 1 a n a 1 0). Now set C π = Y π X, where we view products of permutations as compositions of maps, and so multiply from right to left. Certainly the objects in Definition 2.7 could be defined as elements of S n+2 by adding 1 to each symbol, but the notation is somewhat easier to maintain in this format. Our result, Theorem 2.14, will be stated in terms of the disjoint cycles in the cycle decomposition of C π. We note that the results below could be stated in terms of the cycle graph of a permutation as introduced by Bafna and Pevzner [1], but the permutations X and Y π mean we do not have to introduce that object in this work. We begin with some straightforward observations about the permutation C π. Lemma 2.8. If π has an adjacency at a i, then C π fixes a i, meaning that its cycle decomposition includes the 1-cycle (a i ). Corollary 2.9. If adj(π) 0, then C R(π) has one fewer fixed point than C π does. Lemma Suppose that π S n. If 0 and n appear in the same cycle of C π, then 0 and n 1 appear in the same cycle of C R(π). Example Let π = [ ] S 7. Then Y π = ( ) and C π = ( )(6)(8). The value 6 was an adjacency of π because a 3 = 6 and a 4 = 7, and we see that C π does indeed fix the value 6. If we apply the stepwise reduction operator to this adjacency, we obtain R(π) = [ ] S 6, and C R(π) = ( )(7). Observe that C R(π) has one fewer fixed point than C π has. Additionally, while 0 and 7 appear in the same cycle of C π, we have 0 and 6 appearing in the same cycle of C R(π). Wenowmake someobservations aboutthepermutationc π forπ = [a 1 a n ] S n. First, recall that C π (n) = Y π X(n) = Y π (n + 1) = a n {1,...,n}, and in particular C π (n) 0. Thus, if 0 and n are in the same cycle of C π, then there is at least one other letter, a n, in that cycle as well, and it appears (cyclically) to the right of n and to the left of 0. Suppose now that π has a pointer pair p = (x,x + 1) and q = (y,y + 1) appearing as p q p q. By[2, Lemma2], applying cdstoπ withthiscontextproducesapermutation σ having exactly two more cycles in its cycle decomposition than π has. Lemma Suppose that π has a pointer pair p = (x,x+1) and q = (y,y+1) that appear in alternating order. Let π be the result of applying cds to π with context {p,q}. Then the only cycles in the cycle decomposition of C π that do not also appear in the cycle decomposition of C π are those that contain x or y. Moreover, x and y are fixed by the permutation C π, and the rest of the cycle decomposition for C π is obtained from that for C π by deleting x and y from the cycles in which they appear.

7 SORTING PERMUTATIONS: GAMES, GENOMES, AND CYCLES 7 Proof. This is easy to check using Table 1 and the definition of C π. Example 2.11 continued. The pointers (3, 4) and (5, 6) appear in alternating order in π = [ ]. If we apply cds with that context, we obtain σ = [ ], for which C σ = ( )(3)(5)(6)(8). Observe from Lemma 2.12 that applying cds produces two fixed points in the permutation. An element of S n can have at most n fixed points, so there is a limit to the number of times cds could possibly be applied. Corollary 2.13 (cds Termination). The sorting operation cds can only be applied finitely many times to a given permutation before producing a cds fixed point. Indeed, if repeated applications of cds to a permutation π yield a fixed point ϕ, then we will say that ϕ is a fixed point for π. We are now ready to answer the cds-sortability decision problem. Theorem 2.14 (cds-sortability). A permutation π S n is sortable if and only if 0 and n are in disjoint cycles of C π. Proof. A permutation π is not cds-sortable if and only if repeated applications of cds lead to some fixed point ϕ = [k (k +1) n 1 (k 1)] for k > 1. With this restriction on k, we find that certainly 0 and n are in the same cycle of C ϕ = Y ϕ X ( )( ) = (n+1) (k 1) (k 2) 1 n (n 1) (k +1) k n (n+1), namely the cycle (0 n (k 1)). Because there are no (0,1) or (n,n+1) pointers in an element of S n, Lemma 2.12 shows that applications of cds to π will not change whether 0 and n appear in the same cycle of the product C = Y X. In other words, 0 and n are in the same cycle of ϕ if and only if they are in the same cycle of π, completing the proof. 3. Implications of cds-sortability In this section, we consider a variety of examples and implications of Theorem 2.14, and we introduce the notion of the strategic pile of a permutation. Example 3.1. The permutation [n (n 1) 2 1] S n is cds-sortable if and only if n is odd. Thus, to determine if a permutation π S n is cds-sortable, we only need construct the permutation C π and check whether 0 and n appear in the same cycle, a linear time computation. Corollary 3.2. If π = [a 1 a 2 a n ] S n satisfies either a 1 = 1 or a n = n, then π is cds-sortable. Proof. If a 1 = 1, then the permutation C π fixes 0. If a n = n, then the permutation C π fixes n. In either case, 0 and n necessarily appear in separate cycles of the disjoint cycle decomposition of C π.

8 8 ADAMYK, HOLMES, MAYFIELD, MORITZ, SCHEEPERS, TENNER, AND WAUCK There are (n 1)! elements of S n that fix 1, and (n 1)! elements of S n that fix n, and (n 2)! permutations satisfy both of these constraints. Thus, by Corollary 3.2, there are at least 2(n 1)! (n 2)! cds-sortable elements in S n for all n. We now consider the relationship between C π and C π 1. Using the fact that the cycle notation for a permutation σ 1 can be obtained from that of σ by reversing the data in each cycle, the following result is straightforward from the definition of C π. Lemma 3.3. For a permutation π S n, the permutation C π 1 is obtained from C 1 π, the inverse of C π, by replacing each i {1,...,n} with π(i). Example 3.4. Consider π = [ ] S 7, for which π 1 = [ ]. In Example 2.11, we computed C π = ( )(6)(8). Thus Cπ 1 = ( )(6)(8), and C π 1 = ( )(3)(8). With this characterization, we can analyze cds-sortability of π 1 in terms of that of π. Corollary 3.5. A permutation π is cds-sortable if and only if π 1 is cds-sortable. Proof. Because (π 1 ) 1 = π, we need only prove one direction of the biconditional statement. Suppose that π = [a 1 a n ] S n is not cds-sortable. Thus 0 and n appear in the same cycle of C π by Theorem Recall that a n = π 1 (n) must be in this cycle as well. These values {0,n,a n } necessarily appear in the same cycle of Cπ 1, although in a different cycle order. To obtain C π 1 from Cπ 1, we replace each i {1,...,n} by π(i), and thus {0,π(n),π(a n ) = n} are in the same cycle of C π 1. Therefore π 1 is not cds-sortable, completing the proof. Although the cds-sortable subset of S n is closed under taking inverses, it is not closed under multiplication and so does not form a subgroup of S n. Lemma 3.6 (cds Parity Invariance). Let π be a permutation with either of the following properties: (1) π(j) mod 2 = 0 j mod 2 = 0 for all j, or (2) π(j) mod 2 = 1 j mod 2 = 0 for all j. Let σ be obtained by applying cds to π with some context. Then σ satisfies the same property above. Proof. This follows from a case analysis of the parities of x and y in the possibilities outlined in Table 1. Corollary 3.7. (a) If π S n satisfies and n is odd, then π is cds-sortable. (b) If π S n satisfies π(j) mod 2 = 0 j mod 2 = 0 π(j) mod 2 = 1 j mod 2 = 0, then n is even and π is not cds-sortable.

9 SORTING PERMUTATIONS: GAMES, GENOMES, AND CYCLES 9 Proof. (a) The cycle containing 0 in the disjoint cycle decomposition of C π will contain only even values. If n is odd, then it will not appear in this cycle, and thus π is cds-sortable by Theorem (b) The entry 1 appears in an even position of π. By Lemma 3.6, then, repeated applications of cds will lead to a fixed point ϕ with 1 in an even numbered position, and so ϕ is not the identity and so π is not cds-sortable. The parity of n follows from Lemma 3.6 and the fact that 1 and n are adjacent in ϕ. Observe that the converse of Corollary 3.7 is not true. Example 3.8. The permutation [ ] is an element of S 8 and satisfies the biconditional statement of Corollary 3.7(a), but is cds-sortable by Corollary 3.2. For π n that is not cds-sortable, applications of cds produce a cds fixed point other than the identity. This leads to the following decision problem. D.2 cds FIXED POINT: INSTANCE: Integers n > k > 1 and a permutation π S n. QUESTION: Is [k (k +1) n 1 (k 1)] a cds fixed point of π? We shall show that this decision problem is a linear time problem. Definition 3.9. Fix a permutation π S n that is not cds-sortable. Then 0 and n appear in the same cycle of C π, say as (0 n b 1 b 2 b r ). The strategic pile of π, denoted SP(π) is the set {b 1,b 2,...,b r }. For a permutation π that is cds-sortable, set SP(π) =. Example Let π = [ ] S 7. As computed in Example 2.11, we have C π = ( )(6)(8), and so SP(π) = {5,2,1,4,3}. The following is an important observation about the interaction between strategic piles and the cds operation. Lemma Suppose that σ is obtained from π by an application of cds with context {(x,x+1),(y,y+1)}. Then SP(π)\{x,y} SP(σ) SP(π). Proof. This is a result of Lemma We can now analyze how to deliberately affect a strategic pile. Theorem 3.12 (Strategic Pile Removal). Let π S n be a permutation with SP(π) > 1. For each pointer p = (x,x + 1) corresponding to a strategic pile element x SP(π), there exists a pointer q such that cds is applicable to the pointer pair {p,q}, and this application of cds results in a permutation σ for which SP(σ) SP(π)\{x}. Proof. Consider such a π = [a 1 a n ] S n, and note that (a 1 1),a n SP(π) by construction. Consider x SP(π). Suppose first that π has the form [ (x+1) x ]. Consider all pointers appearing between x + 1 and x in π. If they each appear twice in this portion of the inverse image notation for π, then this region would include x+2 and x 1, as well as x+3 and x 2,

10 10 ADAMYK, HOLMES, MAYFIELD, MORITZ, SCHEEPERS, TENNER, AND WAUCK and so on. In other words, we would have a 1 = x + 1 and a n = x. However, this would force SP(π) = {a n }, which contradicts the assumption that the strategic pile contains more than one element. Thus there is some pointer p so that p and (x,x+1) appear in alternating order in π. If we apply cds to π under this context, then the resulting σ will have the form [ x (x+1) ], and the adjacency x(x+1) will force x SP(σ). Now suppose that π has the form [ x (x+1) ]. If x and x+1 are not adjacent in π, then we can argue analogously to the previous case. If, on the other hand, π = [ x (x+1) ], then C π (x) = x, and so in fact x SP(π). Theorem 3.12 considered permutations whose strategic piles had more than one element, and we now characterize all others with nonempty strategic piles. Corollary The strategic pile SP(π) of π = [a 1 a n ] S n has exactly one element if and only if a 1 1 = a n < n. Proof. Certainly {a 1 1,a n } SP(π), so a strategic pile of size one will force a 1 1 = a n. On the other hand, if a 1 1 = a n, then C π (n) = a n and C π (a n ) = 0, so SP(π) = {a n }. That we must have a n < n follows from Corollary 3.2, because otherwise π would be cds-sortable and the set SP(π) would be empty. Note that if π is not cds-sortable, then repeated applications of cds will produce a fixed point ϕ = [k n 1 (k 1)] for k > 1, and SP(ϕ) = {k 1}. Thus k 1 SP(π) as well. Lemma Consider a permutation π S n that is not cds-sortable. For each cds fixed point [k n 1 (k 1)] obtainable from π by cds operations, we have k 1 SP(π). In fact, the converse to Lemma 3.14 is also true. We shall prove this using Theorem 3.12 and the following result, which shows that whenever x SP(π) is not the only element in the strategic pile, there is a cds application that can be applied to π to produce σ for which x SP(σ). Theorem 3.15 (Strategic Pile Retention). Let π S n be a permutation with SP(π) > 1. For each element x SP(π), there exist pointers {p,q} such that cds is applicable to π with context {p,q}, and this application of cds results in a permutation σ for which x SP(σ). Proof. If SP(π) = 2, then the result follows from Theorems 2.14 and Now suppose that there are distinct elements x,y,z SP(π). We want to apply cds to π in such a context so as to have x SP(σ) for the resulting σ. Define pointers p = (x,x+1), q = (y,y +1), and r = (z,z +1). By Theorem 3.12, there is a pair of pointers {u,q} such that applying cds to π with context {u,q} produces σ with SP(π)\{u,q} SP(σ) SP(π)\{q}, and there is a pair of pointers {v,r} such that applying cds to π with context {v,r} produces τ with SP(π) \ {v,r} SP(τ) SP(π) \ {r}. If we can show that it is possible to find either u p or v p, then the proof will be complete. Suppose this cannot be done. That is, the only pointer with which q alternates is p, and the only pointer with which r alternates is also p. Then any non-p pointers that appear between the two copies of q in π must appear two times in that region of π, and similarly for any non-p pointers appearing between the two copies of r in the π. Also, note that q and r do not alternate with each other. Without loss of generality, these pointers appear in π as p q r p r q.

11 SORTING PERMUTATIONS: GAMES, GENOMES, AND CYCLES 11 Because each a i in π has left pointer (a i 1,a i ) and right pointer (a i,a i +1), there must be at least one other pointer s appearing between the two rs. Thus both copies of s must appear in this region. We can repeat this argument, as in the proof of Theorem 3.12, to find that, in fact, such an arrangement would be impossible. The Strategic Pile Removal Theorem and the Strategic Pile Retention Theorem imply the following linear time solution to the cds FIXED POINT decision problem. Theorem 3.16 (cds Fixed Point). Fix integers n > k > 1 and π S n. The permutation [k n 1 (k 1)] is a cds fixed point for π if and only if k 1 SP(π). Recall the permutation C π = Y π X of Definition 2.7, and set c(π) = number of cycles in the disjoint cycle decomposition of C π. In [2, Theorem 4], Christie computes the minimum number of applications of the minimal block interchanges needed to sort a cds-sortable π S n in terms of this c(π). That can be stated in our context as follows. Theorem 3.17 (cds Duration [2, Theorem 4]). For each π S n that is not a cds fixed point, the minimum number of applications of cds resulting in a fixed point is { n+1 c(π) if π is cds-sortable, and 2 n+1 c(π) 1 otherwise. 2 The following statement follows from Lemma Corollary 3.18 (cds Bounded Removal). Applying cds removes at most two elements from the strategic pile of a permutation. 4. Sorting by context directed reversals While the previous two sections analyzed the cds operation, this section explores a different sorting procedure called cdr, which operates on signed permutations. The context directed block reversal operation, denoted cdr, is again defined in terms of the pointers described in Section 1. Definition 4.1. Consider a signed permutation π in which the pointers p and p both appear. The cdr operation on π with context p reverses and negates the block of letters that are flanked by the pointers {±p}. Example 4.2. Consider [ ] S π 5. The left pointer of 3 is (2,3), and the left pointer of 2 is (3,2), so we can apply cdr with this context. The resulting signed permutation is [ ] S π 5. Definition 4.3. An element of S ± n is cdr-sortable if application of some sequence of cdr operations terminates in the identity element e S ± n. An element of S± n is reverse cdrsortable if application of some sequence of cdr operations terminates in [ n (n 1) 1]. Deciding whether a given signed permutation is cdr-sortable appears to be more challenging that the corresponding decision problem for the cds operation. D.3 cdr-sortability: INSTANCE: A signed permutation π. QUESTION: Is π cdr-sortable?

12 12 ADAMYK, HOLMES, MAYFIELD, MORITZ, SCHEEPERS, TENNER, AND WAUCK D.4 REVERSE cdr-sortability: INSTANCE: A signed permutation π. QUESTION: Is π reverse cdr-sortable? Another complication in the signed setting is that, in contrast to the cds Termination result (Corollary 2.13), there are cdr-sortable signed permutations for which not all cdr operations necessarily lead to the identity. Example 4.4. Consider π = [ ] S ± 5. This is a cdr-sortable element, as can be seen by applying cdr first to the pointer (2,3), then to (3,4), then to (4,5), and finally to (1,2). However, first applying cdr for the pointer (2,3) and then for the pointer (1,2) will produce [ ], which is not cdr-sortable. A similar difficulty can arise with reverse cdr-sorting. This phenomenon is one of the complicating factors in characterizing cdr-sortability and reverse cdr-sortability, and calls for an investigation of the cdr fixed points of a signed permutation. Our first step is to identify the set of signed permutations that are cdr fixed points. This, then, reveals the following decision problem. D.5 cdr FIXED POINT: INSTANCE: Integer n > 1, a signed permutation π S ± n, and a cdr fixed point ϕ S ± n. QUESTION: Is ϕ a cdr fixed point of π? As was the case for cds, reducing a signed permutation that has adjacencies affects neither its cdr-sortability nor its reverse cdr-sortability. Theorem 4.5 (cdr Reduction). A permutation π is cdr-sortable if and only if its reduction FR(π) is cdr-sortable. We now identify the structure of the set of cdr fixed points. Definition 4.6. Let cdr n be the elements of S± n that are cdr fixed points. That is, cdr n S ± n are the signed permutations for which cdr cannot be applied. Theorem 4.7. The set cdr n S± n consists of elements whose inverse image notation is either entirely positive or entirely negative. Moreover, this forms a subgroup of S ± n. Proof. First note that cdr n consists of those permutations [a 1 a n ] in which ±p do not both appear for any pointer p. Certainly if all {a i } have the same sign then this will be the case. We must now consider whether any other permutation might also be an element of cdr n. Suppose that at least one of the {a i} is positive and at least one is negative. In fact, we can find an x such that some a i = x and some a j = (x+1). Without loss of generality, suppose that x > 0. Then the right pointer of a i is (x,x + 1), and the right pointer of a j is (x + 1,x). Thus we would be able to apply cdr with context ±(x,x + 1), and such a permutation would not be a cdr fixed point. That cdr n is a subgroup of S± n follows from the fact that the product of two same-signed integers is always positive, and the product of two opposite-signed integers is always negative. Corollary 4.8. cdr n = 2n!. We can also consider the collection of signed permutations that are cds fixed points.

13 SORTING PERMUTATIONS: GAMES, GENOMES, AND CYCLES 13 Theorem 4.9. The set cds n S± n D n. of cds fixed points is isomorphic to the dihedral group Proof. By analyzing possible pointer contexts, we see that the only cds fixed points of S ± n are of either the form [k (k +1) n 1 2 (k 1)], as described in Corolllary 2.4, or [ (k 1) 2 1 n (n 1) k]. The collection of these objects is generated by the signed permutations and µ n = [n (n 1) 2 1] ν n = [ n (n 1) 2 1]. These signed permutations have order n and 2, respectively, in S ± n, and µi n ν n = ν n µ n i n. Thus µ n,ν n is isomorphic to the dihedral group D n. Although cdr can be more complicated to analyze than cds, it does share some of the parity invariance features of the cds operation. Lemma 4.10 (cdr Parity Invariance). Let π be a signed permutation with either of the following properties: (1) π(j) mod 2 = 0 j mod 2 = 0 for all j, or (2) π(j) mod 2 = 1 j mod 2 = 0 for all j. Let σ be obtained by applying cdr to π with some context. Then σ satisfies the same property above. Proof. There is nothing to prove if π is a cdr fixed point, so assume that it is not. Then both x and (x+1) appear in π. Without loss of generality, we can assume that π has the following form, for x > 0: π = [ x a b (x+1) ], and the cdr operation with context ±(x,x+1) will transform a b (x+1) into (x+ 1) b a to produce σ. Certainly x and x+1 have different parities. Moreover, if π satisfies one of the parity properties listed above, then x and a have different parities, as do b and x+1. Thus, because z and z always have the same parity, the signed permutation σ satisfies the same parity property that π did. Under some circumstances, the introduction of sign to the objects we are sorting via cdr can almost be considered a red herring. Example A signed permutation of the form [( 1) ε 1 1 ( 1) ε 2 2 ( 1) εn n] is cdrsortable if and only if some ε j is even. Certainly if every ε j is even then π is the identity permutation and there is nothing to prove. Now suppose that some of the {ε i } are even and some are odd, and choose j such that ε j is even and at least one of ε k {ε j±1 } is odd. Then a reversal using either the pointers ±(j 1,j) or the pointers ±(j,j +1) can be performed, resulting in replacement of the term k by k. We can repeat this procedure until the identity permutation is obtained.

14 For π = [a 1 a n ] S ± n, set π = [f(a 1 ) f(a 2 ) f(a n )], 14 ADAMYK, HOLMES, MAYFIELD, MORITZ, SCHEEPERS, TENNER, AND WAUCK It is not clear how Example 4.11 may be generalized. One tempting conjecture would be to suppose that if π = [a 1 a n ] is a signed permutation with both positive and negative terms, and if the permutation σ = [ a 1 a n ] is cds-sortable then π is cdr-sortable. Unfortunately, this is false, as demonstrated by the signed permutation π = [ ], which Example 4.19 will show is neither cdr-sortable, nor reverse cdr-sortable, despite the fact that σ = [ ] is cds-sortable. We can, however, determine cdr-sortability for other families of signed permutations, such as the following result. Proposition For each n 4 the signed permutation β n = [ (n 1) n 1 ( 1) n 2 ( 1) n+1 3 ( 1) n+1 (n 3) ( 1) n (n 2)] is cdr-sortable. Each intermediate stage of a cdr sorting path for β n is a cds fixed point, and no intermediate stage is a cdr fixed point. Proof. First note that we can apply the procedure of Example 4.11 to the rightmost n 2 terms of β n to obtain γ n = [ (n 1) n 1 2 n 2]. Wecanthenapplythecdroperationtothepointer (n 2,n 1), followedbyanapplicationto the pointer (n 1,n), which will produce the identity permutation. Thus β n is cdr-sortable. To show that each result of an application of cdr produces a cds fixed point, note first that this can be checked manually for n = 4. We now proceed inductively by assuming that n > 4 and that the result holds for all β k with k [4,n). If n is even, then there is no positive pointer appearing twice in β n, so we are unable to apply cds. On the other hand, each of the possible contexts for which we could apply cdr would produce an adjacency x (x + 1) for x > 0. By cdr Reduction (Theorem 4.5), the resulting signed permutation is equal to β k for some k < n, and we can now apply the induction hypothesis. An analogous argument applies if n is odd, concluding the proof. We now derive a necessary condition for sortability by context directed reversals. This involves constructing an object that suggests a hybrid of the cycle graph of a permutation as introduced by Bafna and Pevzner [1], and the breakpoint graph of a signed permutation, introduced by Hannenhalli and Pevzner [5]. For an integer m, define f(m) by: { [2m 1 2m] if m 0 and f(m) = [ 2m (2m+1)] if m < 0 the concatenation of the ordered lists f(a i ). In analogy to Definition 2.7, we now make the following definition. Definition Given π S ± n with π = [b 1 b 2n ], define two permutations on the set {0,1,...,2n+1}, written in cycle notation, as follows: U = (0 1)(2 3)(4 5) (2n 2n+1)

15 and Now set SORTING PERMUTATIONS: GAMES, GENOMES, AND CYCLES 15 Example If π = [ ], then and which produces V π = (0 b 1 )(b 2 b 3 )(b 4 b 5 ) (b 2n 2n+1). D π = V π U. π = [ ] V π = (0 5)(6 2)(1 4)(3 9)(10 7)(8 11), D π = V π U = (0 4)(1 5)( )( ). Applying cdr with pointer ±(2,3) to π produces σ, where σ = [ ], and we now have D σ = (0)(1)( )( )(4)(5). Weshall use the following observations about the permutation D π where π is[b 1 b 2n ] S 2n. As D π (2n) = b 2n 0, we find that the two-cycle (0 2n) never occurs in the disjoint cycle decomposition of D π. Thus, when 0 and 2n occur in the same cycle of D π, then that cycle is of length at least three. Also observe that if the entries a and a+1 of π appear in π as [ a a+1 ] then the two-cycle (2a 2a+1) appears in (the disjoint cycle decomposition of) V π, and as this two-cycle also appears in U, we see that D π s disjoint cycle decomposition contains the two one-cycles (2a) and (2a+1). The objective of sorting by cdr is to convert D π to a permutation which in disjoint cycle decomposition form is a composition of onecycles only. Since an application of cdr creates an adjacency, the effect on the cycles of the permutation is to extract singleton cycles from existing longer cycles. Theorem 4.15 (cdr-sortability). If the signed permutation π S ± n is cdr-sortable, then 0 and 2n are in disjoint cycles of D π. Proof. Suppose that 0 and 2n are in the same cycle of D π. Applying cdr to π for any pointers ±(x,x+1) to obtain some σ will create two 1-cycles (2x)(2x+1) in D σ. The cycle C of D π that contained x appears in D σ as C \ {x}, and similarly for the cycle that had contained x+1, and all other cycles of D π are unchanged in D σ. There is no (0,1) or (n,n+1) pointer in π S ± n, so if 0 and 2n are in the same cycle of D π then they must be for D σ as well. Moreover, since (2n 0) is not a cycle in either U or V π, there must be some third value in this cycle as well. It will never be possible to reduce the length of the cycle containing 0 and 2n to less than three, and hence π is not cdr-sortable. Unfortunately, the converse to Theorem 4.15 is not true, which prevents us from proving a true cdr analogue of Theorem Example Let π = [ ] S ± 6. We have π = [ ] and D π = (0 11 2)(1 3 10)(4 8 6)(5 7 9), in which 0 and 12 appear in disjoint cycles. This π is not cdr-sortable because after the (only possible) first application of cdr with context ±(1, 2), the resulting signed permutation is [ ], and after the (only possible) next applicationof cdr withcontext ±(5,6), theresulting permutationis theunsorted[ ].

16 16 ADAMYK, HOLMES, MAYFIELD, MORITZ, SCHEEPERS, TENNER, AND WAUCK To return briefly to a previous theme, note that if the signed permutation π is cdr-sortable, then the permutation obtained from π by replacing each entry by its absolute value need not be cds-sortable. The signed permutation π = [ ] is one such permutation. Moreover, unlike in the cds setting, even when a signed permutation π is cdr-sortable, not all applications of cdr to π will lead to a sorted permutation. This indicates that the strategic pile that emerged from our analysis of cds-sortability does not apply directly to cdr-sortability. In other words, fixed points other than the identity permutation may result from applications of cdr. Similar remarks apply to cdr reverse-sortable signed permutations. These remarks and examples illustrate that it is unlikely we will be able to leverage a mathematical relationship between the D objects for signed permutations andthe C objects for unsigned permutations to allow us to determine whether a given signed permutation is cdr-sortable. Indeed, it is also not clear what, if any, analogue of the strategic pile for cds there may be for cdr. Despite this complexity, there are some restrictions on the cdr fixed points that emerge from cdr-sortable or reverse cdr-sortable permutations. Indeed, although we do not currently have a full solution for the cdr Fixed Point decision problem, the following results provide some constraints on the possibilities. Theorem If π S ± n is cdr-sortable, then every cdr fixed point of π is an element of S n. Proof. Let π S ± n be cdr-sortable and assume, to the contrary, that a sequence of cdr applications leads to a fixed point ϕ = [a 1 a n ] with a i < 0 for all i. Let b i = a i for all i. Then ϕ = [2b 1 (2b 1 1) 2b 2 (2b 2 1) 2b n (2b n 1)]. By Theorem 4.15, the letters 0 and 2n appear in disjoint cycles of D π, and the same must be true for D ϕ. Knowing ϕ allows us to compute D ϕ. In particular, note that all but two of the 2-cycles in U and V ϕ contain values of opposite parities. Thus the symbol 0 is preceded in its cycle of D ϕ by a string of odd values, and succeeded in its cycle by a string of even values. Thus there is some other even value 2x in the cycle that is preceded by a string of even values and succeeded by a string of odd values. Given the restrictions on ϕ, the only possibility for this 2x is 2n, which contradicts Theorem An analogous argument characterizes the attainable fixed points for a reverse cdr-sortable permutation. Theorem If π S ± n is reverse cdr sortable, then the inverse image notation of every cdr fixed point of π consists entirely of negative values. It is tempting to conjecture that in signed permutations the segment between 2n and 0 in a cycle of some D π containing both of them has the same properties relative to cdr as the strategic pile did for cds. This, however, is not the case. Example Thepermutationπ = [ ]isneithercdr-sortable(Theorem4.17) nor reverse cdr-sortable (Theorem 4.18). Indeed, the cdr fixed points of π are [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], [ ], and [ ], while the analogue of the strategic pile for π would be {6, 1,4}.

17 SORTING PERMUTATIONS: GAMES, GENOMES, AND CYCLES 17 Corollary Let π S ± n be satisfy π(j) mod 2 = 0 j mod 2 = 1 for all j n. Then π in not cdr-sortable. Proof. Let ϕ be a fixed point resulting from applying cdr operations. If all entries in ϕ are negative, thentheorem 4.17implies thatπ isnot cdr-sortable. Ontheother hand, if ϕ S n, then Lemma 4.10 and the parity property of π imply that ϕ also has this parity property. By Lemma 3.7, we must have that n is even and ϕ is not cds-sortable. Then by Theorem 2.14, the strategic pile of ϕ is nonempty, and so 0 and 2n appear in the same cycle of D π. Thus, by Theorem 4.15, the signed permutation π is not cdr-sortable. Note that a signed permutation satisfying the parity property hypothesis of Corollary 4.20 may still be reverse cdr-sortable, as illustrated by [ ]. 5. Games and permutations When an unsigned permutation π is not cds-sortable, the resulting fixed point reached after successive cds operations may depend on the order in which these sorting operations are applied. By Lemma 3.14, the fixed points reachable are determined by the strategic pile SP(π). A similar phenomenon occurs for cdr, even when the signed permutation being sorted is sortable. When both cdr and cds can be applied, once again for non-sortable permutations the fixed point reached by applications of cdr or cds depends on the order in which the sorting operations are applied. These phenomena suggest several combinatorial sorting games. Fix a (signed) permutation π and a set S of sorting operations and a set F of fixed points of π under S. Then the two-person game G(π,S,F) is played as follows. Player ONE applies an operation from S to π to produce π 1. Player TWO applies an operation from S to π 1 to produce π 2. The players alternate sorting moves in this manner until a fixed point ϕ is reached. Player ONE wins if ϕ F. Otherwise, player TWO wins. We also consider the normal play and misere versions of the game. Definition 5.1. (a) The game N(π,S) proceeds as G(π,S,F), but the player that makes the last legal move wins. (b) The gamem(π,s) proceeds asg(π,s,f), but the player that makes the last legal move loses. When S {cds, cdr}, each application of a move m S to a permutation that is not a m fixed point reduces the number of non-adjacencies. Elements of S n have at most n 1 non-adjacencies, and thus there are always at most n 1 moves in a game for π S ± n. Therefore, for each n, these games are of finite length, and none of them ends in a draw. A classical theorem of Zermelo [11] implies that for each choice of π, S {cds, cdr} and F, some player has a winning strategy in the game G(π,S,F). Theorem 5.2 (Zermelo). For any finite win-loose game of perfect information between two players, one of the players has a winning strategy.

18 18 ADAMYK, HOLMES, MAYFIELD, MORITZ, SCHEEPERS, TENNER, AND WAUCK This fact suggests the following decision problems. D.6 NORMAL SORTING GAME: INSTANCE: A positive integer n, a permutation π, and a set S of sorting operations. QUESTION: Does ONE have a winning strategy in the game N(π,S)? D.7 MISERE SORTING GAME: INSTANCE: A positive integer n, a permutation π, and a set S of sorting operations. QUESTION: Does ONE have a winning strategy in the game M(π,S)? D.8 FIXED POINT SORTING GAME: INSTANCE: A positive integer n, a permutation π, and a set S of sorting operations, and a set F of S-fixed points. QUESTION: Does ONE have a winning strategy in the game G(π,S,F)? We provide a complete solution for the Misere and Normal Sorting Game decision problems for the case when S = {cds}. The Fixed Point Sorting Game decision problem appears more complicated, and we present partial results for that setting. Consider first the case of unsigned permutations and S = {cds}. Towards analysis of the normal and misere versions of this game, recall the cds Duration result, Theorem 3.17, which gave a lower bound for the number of steps required to obtain a cds fixed point of π. Since Christie s method for computing c(π) is a linear time algorithm (see [2, Figure 7]) the complexity of the decision problem of which player has a winning strategy in N(π,{cds}) or in M(π,{cds}) for π S n is linear in n. Unlike the Normal and Misere Sorting Game decision problems, the complexity of the Fixed Point Sorting Game decision problem is currently unknown and appears to depend strongly on the structure of the strategic pile, as well as the structure of the set F of cds fixed points that are favorable to player ONE. When the strategic pile has at most 2 elements, the Fixed Point Sorting Game decision problem can be dealt with by reformulating the cds-sortability result in terms of a fixed point sorting game. Theorem 2.14 (reformulated). Let n be a positive integer. Let F = {[1 2 n]}. For any π S n, the following statements are equivalent. (a) ONE has a winning strategy in the game G(π,{cds},F). (b) No cycle in C π contains both 0 and n. (c) The strategic pile of π is empty. Since criterion (b) can be verified in time linear in n, the deciding whether ONE has a winning strategy in this game is of linear time complexity. When the strategic pile SP(π) is nonempty and has at most two elements, ONE has a winning strategy if and only if F is nonempty, by Theorem When the strategic pile SP(π) has more than two elements, additional factors influence who has a winning strategy. Recall Example 3.1, and consider α n = [2n (2n 1) 3 2 1]. Its strategic pile is {1,3,5,...,2n 1}, and no pair of pointers from {(1,2),(3,4),...,(2n 1,2n)} provide context to a cds-application. Thus a player can remove at most one element