The whole game hinges on the fact that the players can't communicate and coordinate. But what if they both have the same lawyer? The moment you ask for a lawyer the police can't talk to you without the lawyer present and if its the same lawyer the lawyer can not only communicate with both players as he can indirectly transmit communications between both players. This way the whole game is messed up.
Oh, what a scholar!
Hehehe. Calm down. Don't get all stressed out about this. But it kinda does....
OK, in all seriousness, I put this in a test (with an actual game matrix) and the quality of student responses sort of mirror the quality of responses we've seen here today. Obviously what we colloquially call the "prisoners' dilemma" game and what I described were 2 different games and you should now be introducing other things like beliefs into the game.
At least we didn't get a reg y x reply...
You started a thread, and have given subsequent responses, that show you don't understand the simplest concepts in 2-person game theory. Nor do you understand why your logic was flawed in asserting a "fatal flaw" in a mathematical definition.
"Colloquially"? It's a mathematical definition. There is nothing that "we colloquially call prisoner's dilemma".
All of what you've written here is gibberish. Nobody needs to "calm down". I was actually trying to point out the most basic issue that you fail to grasp. Hopefully you don't actually have students.
No it doesn't.It kind of does
You're either being obtuse, or don't understand some really basic concepts.
The solution for one two-person game isn't "kinda" a solution for a different game. No more than saying x = 2 is "kinda" like x = 3. It's a matter of formal mathematics. There's no "kinda" involved.
What you've done come up with a scenario with assumptions that are different from those of Prisoner's Dilemma, that would correspond to a *DIFFERENT* game than Prisoner's Dilemma. Then you argue that there is a "fatal flaw" in Prisoner's Dilemma because it doesn't accurately describe your different game.
But x=2 IS kind of like x=3, in the sense that its closer than x=107
please explain?
"Colloquially"? It's a mathematical definition. There is nothing that "we colloquially call prisoner's dilemma".You call prisoners' dilemma a definition? Well, OK.
It's not what "I" call it. It's what it is. Prisoner's Dilemma is a two-person game with a specific payoff-matrix. These are mathematical definitions. They are not opinions. They are all defined in the first chapter of any intro game theory text.
You're misusing elementary mathematical definitions. Anyone with minimal intelligence could spend an hour working through Chapter-1 of a game theory book or reading Wikipedia and understand these definitions. Yet you have not done so. Instead, you prefer to preserve your ignorance and irrationally misuse technical definitions in arguments that don't make sense. This is the definition of a crank.
But x=2 IS kind of like x=3, in the sense that its closer than x=107
please explain?To be fair this guy does have a valid point.
No, it is not a valid point.
Anything is "kind of like" anything else in some sense. An asteroid is kind of like a piano, because they are both made of atoms. 999999999 is kind of like 3, since it is closer to 3 than is 999999999999. Spanish is kind of like water, since they are both used by Spaniards.
Hence, A "is kind of like" B is a vacuous statement. It's non-informative, since anything is kind of like anything else, in some sense.
Ergo, an argument that relies on the statement: "A is kind of like B", often isn't logically sound.
But x=2 IS kind of like x=3, in the sense that its closer than x=107
please explain?To be fair this guy does have a valid point.
No, it is not a valid point.
Anything is "kind of like" anything else in some sense. An asteroid is kind of like a piano, because they are both made of atoms. 999999999 is kind of like 3, since it is closer to 3 than is 999999999999. Spanish is kind of like water, since they are both used by Spaniards.
Hence, A "is kind of like" B is a vacuous statement. It's non-informative, since anything is kind of like anything else, in some sense.
Ergo, an argument that relies on the statement: "A is kind of like B", often isn't logically sound.
You are kind of intense
But x=2 IS kind of like x=3, in the sense that its closer than x=107
please explain?To be fair this guy does have a valid point.
No, it is not a valid point.
Anything is "kind of like" anything else in some sense. An asteroid is kind of like a piano, because they are both made of atoms. 999999999 is kind of like 3, since it is closer to 3 than is 999999999999. Spanish is kind of like water, since they are both used by Spaniards.
Hence, A "is kind of like" B is a vacuous statement. It's non-informative, since anything is kind of like anything else, in some sense.
Ergo, an argument that relies on the statement: "A is kind of like B", often isn't logically sound.You are kind of intense
No, I'm not intense. I think OP is a precocious student in grade 9 or 10 who's actually interested in these things. Someone who perhaps has been given a bit of overenthusiastic support by parents or teachers for throwing around some basic game theory jargon, but doesn't really know what he's talking about.
So I'm explicitly trying to illustrate where he's being illogical or intellectually dishonest, hoping he'll learn something while he's having fun trolling.
I might be wrong. OP might just be a mentally deranged crank. Or he might be poorly educated troll who read some misguided thing about why all economists are wrong about Prisoner's Dilemma, and is here to prove how much smarter he is than all those eggheads.
Gosh, you’re not very smartNo it doesn't.
It kind of does
You're either being obtuse, or don't understand some really basic concepts.
The solution for one two-person game isn't "kinda" a solution for a different game. No more than saying x = 2 is "kinda" like x = 3. It's a matter of formal mathematics. There's no "kinda" involved.
What you've done come up with a scenario with assumptions that are different from those of Prisoner's Dilemma, that would correspond to a *DIFFERENT* game than Prisoner's Dilemma. Then you argue that there is a "fatal flaw" in Prisoner's Dilemma because it doesn't accurately describe your different game.Hehehe. Calm down. Don't get all stressed out about this. But it kinda does....
OK, in all seriousness, I put this in a test (with an actual game matrix) and the quality of student responses sort of mirror the quality of responses we've seen here today. Obviously what we colloquially call the "prisoners' dilemma" game and what I described were 2 different games and you should now be introducing other things like beliefs into the game.
At least we didn't get a reg y x reply...
No, I'm not intense. I think OP is a precocious student in grade 9 or 10 who's actually interested in these things. Someone who perhaps has been given a bit of overenthusiastic support by parents or teachers for throwing around some basic game theory jargon, but doesn't really know what he's talking about.
So I'm explicitly trying to illustrate where he's being illogical or intellectually dishonest, hoping he'll learn something while he's having fun trolling.
I might be wrong. OP might just be a mentally deranged crank. Or he might be poorly educated troll who read some misguided thing about why all economists are wrong about Prisoner's Dilemma, and is here to prove how much smarter he is than all those eggheads.
OP is trolling you, b333. With some success, I might add.