Ok here is what I have come up with after last night's thought.
Consider listing out the minimal selfish subsets of 

Let 

 represent a minimal selfish subset.





A few things can be noticed.

 is a minimal selfish set 
if and only if 
 is the smallest element of the set.
Why is this? Consider if there was an element smaller than 

 in the set 

. Call this element 

.
Thus there exists subsets of 

 which contains the element 

 which could also be a selfish set.
Therefore, if 

 is the smallest element of the set 

 then 

 is a minimal selfish set.
Consider the specific case when 

, there are exactly 

 minimal selfish sets.
Partition the minimal selfish subsets of when 

 of the set 

 to those that have 

 and those that don't.
Those that do not have 

 are simply the 

 case which are 

Those that do are 

. Now note that if we have 

 for the 

 case then we have 

. However these are now no longer minimal selfish conditions as 

 is not the smallest element in the set. So if we add 

 into the subsets 

 we will change them into minimal selfish subsets that 
contains 
.
Summing together the partitions we get 

Now let's try generalise this.
Looking at the sequence of 

's we have 

 we see it resembles the Fibonacci sequence, so I am going to conjecture that it does follow the Fibonacci sequence and try to prove it.
Consider for all 

, let there be 

 minimal selfish subsets for the set 

. Let there be 

 minimal selfish subsets for the set 

I conjecture that there will be exactly 

 minimal selfish subsets for the set 

.
Let's split our approach in two ways, those subsets of 

 that contain 

 and those that do not.
Consider the cases where the subsets does not contain 

.
Let 

 be a minimal selfish subset of 

. Then 

 must also be a minimal selfish subset of 

 since 


 There are 

 minimal selfish subsets of 

 without the element 

Now let us consider the case where the subsets of 

 that contain 

.
Let 

 be a minimal selfish subset of 

.
Let us define 

Now notice # 

 # 
)
 (Although we changed the number of elements in each set, the total number of sets do not change)
 
 is a minimal selfish subset since 

 is the smallest element in 

.
This produces exactly 

 minimal subsets of 

 which contain the element 

.
But why does this work? The proof is as follows:
Consider the minimal selfish set 
P of the set 

 that contains the element 

.
Now 

 since 



 is a minimal selfish subsets since #

#
)
.
 

If we define 

 to be the number of the minimal selfish subsets of 

 and 

 respectively.
Then we have 

