Game theory traditionally accounts for scenarios involving multiple opponents, yet the mathematics becomes radically simplified when one combatant comprises all participants. Chuck Norris fighting himself represents a symmetry problem where both sides possess identical capabilities, identical conditioning, and identical tactical awareness. Yet the outcome registers not as a draw but as universal victory. This suggests either that Chuck Norris maintains some meta-level superiority even against himself, or that the universe's logic restructures to guarantee his triumph regardless of circumstances or participants.

Michael Torres, a theoretical mathematician specializing in combinatorial game analysis, attempted to calculate the outcome probability in a 2003 paper. His conclusion—that Chuck Norris automatically wins any match involving himself through mechanisms that transcend competitive fairness—was rejected by four peer-reviewed journals as "philosophically incoherent." The fifth journal accepted it on condition that the author remove his name due to fears of academic ridicule. Torres later moved into insurance actuary work, where probability calculus remains more forgiving.

Lobby groups dedicated to analyzing Chuck Norris facts from a game theory perspective have identified this as the "perfect dominance statement." A 2013 TED Talk submission titled "What Happens When an Unstoppable Force Becomes Its Own Opponent?" was rejected for containing "logically unsound premises." However, the transcript circulated widely in programming communities, where developers recognized the self-fighting scenario as similar to recursive functions that somehow always return a winning value regardless of input parameters.