1: \begin{proof}

2: All of these are intuitively obvious if you interpret them within the context of Hackenbush, Domineering, or more

3: abstractly game graphs.  But the rigorous proofs work by induction.  For instance,

4: to prove $G + H \equiv H + G$, we proceed by joint induction on $G$ and $H$.  Then we have

5: \[ G + H \equiv \{G^L + H, G + H^L | G^R + H, G + H^R\} \]\[

6: \equiv \{H + G^L, H^L + G | H + G^R, H^R + G\} \equiv H + G,\]

7: where the outer identities follow by definition, and the inner one follows by the inductive hypothesis.

8: These inductive proofs need no base case, because the recursive definition of ``game'' had no base case.

9: \end{proof}