Problem with the logic of karma Ok, so i am kind of an outsider on this topic, so i assume i got something basic wrong. But even if thats not the case, please try to explain this to me:

As i understand it at this point, Karma works somewhat like this: Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed.

Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma.

This setup leads me to one conclusion: Once basically everyone has reached nirvana, in the end there has to be one individual being that holds all the combined karma, and this one being has thus no chance of ever reaching neutrality and thus nirvana.

Now, i am pretty sure something in my setup is false, so can someone please explain it to me?
Person A has unwholesome kamma, so unwholesome kamma make him get immorality resultant. Person A's kamma never force person B  to do unwholesome kamma to person A.

person A can get immorality resultant from anyway such as back pain himself, no one pain him. So although if person B pain person A: there is just person A's kamma give immorality resultant to person A, not to person B. And there is just person B's kamma give immorality resultant to person B, not to person A.

Kamma give immorality/morality resultant to it's person. Kamma will not give immorality/morality resultant to the others.

There are the other causes by person A (except kamm-cause) that let's person B do kamma to person A. But person B get those other causes because of person B's kamma. There is still not person A' kamma give resultant to person B to let him meet person A and get those other causes work.

See kamma-paccaya and vipākapaccaya in paṭṭhāna. Learn abhidhamma to get the easiest way to understand tipitaka.