 
 
where
  
 
The fact of the matter is that we can do this:
Theorem 13.4: Any positive integer N can be expressed as a sum of distinct Fibonacci numbers, no two of which are consecutive; that is,
  
 
where   and
  and   for
  for   (the Zeckendorf representation).
 
(the Zeckendorf representation).
Proof: By the second principle of induction.
 .
 .
In practice, this will leave our opponent unable to follow the same strategy we are using, since
  
 
for all   . The only troublesome case is the case of m=1: but the pair
 . The only troublesome case is the case of m=1: but the pair
  is never necessary, since it can be replace by
  is never necessary, since it can be replace by   , since
 , since 
  
 
If   was in the sum, then you might protest that we now have consecutive
Fibonaccis, but the fact of the matter is that we can always pass the problem
up, until it disappears. The worst cases are these:
  was in the sum, then you might protest that we now have consecutive
Fibonaccis, but the fact of the matter is that we can always pass the problem
up, until it disappears. The worst cases are these:
  
 
  
 
So this only happens when we started with a Fibonacci. Otherwise, we will ultimately pass the problem up until a gap exists, and we have another representation that is non-consecutive Fibonacci numbers.
  
 
and can't choose to remove   - she or he must take some portion
thereof; hence we split
  - she or he must take some portion
thereof; hence we split   , as follows:
 , as follows:
  
 
or
  
 
Player 2 must take something, but can't take all of   , leaving a
succession of non-consecutive Fibonacci numbers for us, Bwahahahaaaa!
 , leaving a
succession of non-consecutive Fibonacci numbers for us, Bwahahahaaaa!
  
 
to us; we take   , and they're stuck. They take 1, we take 2 and win; they
take 2, we take 1 and win.
 , and they're stuck. They take 1, we take 2 and win; they
take 2, we take 1 and win.