Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory!

[Gillian Densmore]

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtlrITxB5qg


On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 4:26 PM glen  wrote:

> Since you brought up Pratchett:
> https://quantumfrontiers.com/2022/08/14/rocks-that-roll/
>
> EricS: Those pocket synthesizers are very tempting. Thanks.
>
> Gil: Yeah, this week's had a way better start. Still can't work out 'cause
> the construction crew has all their stuff packed in the area where I do it.
> [sigh] ... getting fatter by the hour!
>
> Luck: IDK, man. I don't really believe in luck or unluck. But I do believe
> in selection or filtering. I think we've talked about it on the list, where
> we're wired to pay more attention to negative stuff than positive stuff. So
> noticing all the red stop lights and ignoring all the green ones might be
> related to thinking the rustling in the bush is a tiger. If it is a tiger,
> running was a good idea. If it's not a tiger, well you simply wasted a few
> calories, better safe than sorry ... however suspect evolutionary
> psychology might be. One challenge to my disbelief, though, is that I know
> a couple of people who really do seem to always be in the wrong place at
> the wrong time ... get rear-ended by an uninsured driver ... have their
> spouse degenerate with lupus ... allergic to pine nuts (?!?) ... on and on
> for a lifetime of hassle. The story of Job, I guess. Someone has to play
> the 6 sigma role.
>
> On 8/15/22 15:05, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> > I am curius though. Is their some reason awful luck like this
> happens. Just pure luck?
>
> --
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory!

[glen]

Since you brought up Pratchett: 
https://quantumfrontiers.com/2022/08/14/rocks-that-roll/

EricS: Those pocket synthesizers are very tempting. Thanks.

Gil: Yeah, this week's had a way better start. Still can't work out 'cause the 
construction crew has all their stuff packed in the area where I do it. [sigh] 
... getting fatter by the hour!

Luck: IDK, man. I don't really believe in luck or unluck. But I do believe in 
selection or filtering. I think we've talked about it on the list, where we're 
wired to pay more attention to negative stuff than positive stuff. So noticing 
all the red stop lights and ignoring all the green ones might be related to 
thinking the rustling in the bush is a tiger. If it is a tiger, running was a 
good idea. If it's not a tiger, well you simply wasted a few calories, better 
safe than sorry ... however suspect evolutionary psychology might be. One 
challenge to my disbelief, though, is that I know a couple of people who really 
do seem to always be in the wrong place at the wrong time ... get rear-ended by 
an uninsured driver ... have their spouse degenerate with lupus ... allergic to 
pine nuts (?!?) ... on and on for a lifetime of hassle. The story of Job, I 
guess. Someone has to play the 6 sigma role.

On 8/15/22 15:05, Gillian Densmore wrote:

I am curius though. Is their some reason awful luck like this happens. Just 
pure luck?


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory!

[Gillian Densmore]

Glen! hope your feeling better man.
Just for commiseration: been waking up with my shoulders and back feeling
like a pretzel. I have run out of words to describe how upset I am with the
state of the country for sure, and have this constant suspicion terry
prachet is right: the gods like to [REDACTED]  with the world. And we're
actually in some strange game they have made just to troll. Just unreal
inflation.
The part of my week that was [REDACTED]. And no good wrotten etc.:
Two computer mice stopped working. One was a Elcon Trackball, the other
hella' nice Reddragon RGB for more compute. Though I suspect to bring me
one step closer to my room look like a 80s pizzaria and arcade 🤣😂.
Then a mechanical KB by razer, and now my retro-style regular ol ruber
dombes one's springs under the keys have a hissy fit on the regular.
I don't know which of the trolling gods turn it is to troll me. But I was
rickrolled. As in clicked on a link that I should have known better not to,
kind of rick rolled
Oh wait before that a computer moniter went kerput. like WTF anything else
want to break?
All in more or less 2 week period as well

On the hand  the AC unit fam got me is fantastic!

I am curius though. Is their some reason awful luck like this happens. Just
pure luck?

On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 3:23 PM David Eric Smith 
wrote:

> In case you’re feeling a need:
>
> https://www.danmoi.com/
>
> Their products are good.
>
> > On Aug 15, 2022, at 9:59 PM, glen  wrote:
> >
> > LoL! That was fantastic. Everyone needs a jaw harp <
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew%27s_harp> for this exact reason!
> >
> > Here's one of my favorite youtubers trying it out:
> https://youtu.be/3eldMp_E14A
> >
> > On 8/13/22 18:08, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> >> Oh hey man sorry your week sucked. now game theory is actually, where,
> in theory, you start a game of pathfinder on time, and then everyone rolls
> 1D20 for initiative And then their's the reality of geeks who run on carbs
> caffeine. 😛😂🤣
> >> Nothing related to math:
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj7a-p4psRA <
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj7a-p4psRA>
> >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 8:04 AM glen  geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NAQMoRzuxk <
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NAQMoRzuxk>
> >>First laugh out loud of the week!  Yes, I know. My week has sucked.
> >
> > --
> > ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
> >
> > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,VHFV5idiehK9SZIMCC6qvV6wndIfhZJSIpzBPmzYqKCAQqgQ9bOuq3-w8EOfH_qLmE5FGPWHg3yAu-5Gps_vNDgiSYpj3G-AZ0b2WxsAL5TpWfo,&typo=1
> > to (un)subscribe
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,l98GfazZcgjL0kfXMFtxDymAXcm-PWyOgZ_eHv3jQSMFoS8HgPSZbBHJ_JfOsVTRpls-CvCp1PZDt-pdwr38lD9rzS5Ynh2XgN78ooQ0pThYbb8Msg,,&typo=1
> > FRIAM-COMIC
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,tg243Qra2yp0ziJnDY8U64fgR5iEf5EFpeHo3O_9rBIabSsvf9C8sInq_BT7EqHrIXZA8Tr1RjzTLAkwBs0gRqbFSxkOdpyD6yM92fz8uX0DnZi0&typo=1
> > archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,bZW-QSNBHYV0gvp1fu44ehnQHCyzxAvjOdoE_qSjQFQU-EAJhaIuRDFpWPXuQq58u39g9iKK6M-wpcJjwHQeTa_DFL_I2IqELMbYRmdpi-4scjVOUs4,&typo=1
> > 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory!

[glen]

LoL! That was fantastic. Everyone needs a jaw harp 
 for this exact reason!

Here's one of my favorite youtubers trying it out: https://youtu.be/3eldMp_E14A

On 8/13/22 18:08, Gillian Densmore wrote:

Oh hey man sorry your week sucked. now game theory is actually, where, in 
theory, you start a game of pathfinder on time, and then everyone rolls 1D20 
for initiative And then their's the reality of geeks who run on carbs caffeine. 
😛😂🤣

Nothing related to math:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj7a-p4psRA 



On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 8:04 AM glen mailto:geprope...@gmail.com>> wrote:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NAQMoRzuxk 


First laugh out loud of the week!  Yes, I know. My week has sucked.


--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory!

[Gillian Densmore]

Oh hey man sorry your week sucked. now game theory is actually, where, in
theory, you start a game of pathfinder on time, and then everyone rolls
1D20 for initiative And then their's the reality of geeks who run on carbs
caffeine. 😛😂🤣

Nothing related to math:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj7a-p4psRA


On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 8:04 AM glen  wrote:

>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NAQMoRzuxk
>
> First laugh out loud of the week!  Yes, I know. My week has sucked.
>
> --
> ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
>
-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

[FRIAM] Game Theory!

[glen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NAQMoRzuxk

First laugh out loud of the week!  Yes, I know. My week has sucked.

--
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ

-. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom 
https://bit.ly/virtualfriam
to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives:  5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
 1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory

[Steve Smith]

Eric -

All very well described... thank you... I feel you have given me a round 
half-bakers-dozen new things to think about in these matters.
 can tend to spin a thread with a _very_ long ring-down time by 
people who really care about this topic and have put a lot of time 
into it.
Nice description of an (all too) common phenomenon.  Even though my 
tendency is to drive such ringing, I will try to damp instead.
... Confessed bias here on various science problems: most notions 
start out in common language, and are taken as having some meaning -- 
examples: particle in physics; individual in evolutionary dynamics -- 
and only on the far side of learning how to do technical calculations 
for some more mundane reason do we learn that the words may still be 
usable, but that to be used reliably vis a vis the world, they can 
require some rather elaborate construction to attach a definition to. 
So I am interested in that anyway for material things, and it is some 
extension of that interest to wonder about sources of confidence or 
conten! t in expressions.) 

An important phenomenon to ponder..
... The extensive form is not only large, but is also structured, from 
the sequence and dependencies of moves. Therefore one can do 
combinatorics on it. One can speak of how rare subsets of leaves on 
the tree are, and how hard it is to arrive at them reliably, etc. I 
can show what this looks like for evolutionary games, where it 
provides a nice way to get at neutrality, but I am sure the same 
combinatorics can be made useful in many domains. 

Very interesting... thanks...

I like the phrase here "in which nonsense has a defined status".  I would claim that 
there is a meta-game in play where this is literally and obviously the truth... it is why we have 
so many words for "bullshit" to refer to utterances deliberately crafted to sound 
meaningful while being meaningless.  I *think* this is the bread and butter of marketing and of 
politics (which contemporarily is significantly driven by marketing?)

Maybe one can go further though, and recognize that politics and marketing are 
simply exaptations of what is resident in communication at all levels.
yes... and I suspect Glen's assertion that communication is a form of 
grooming has some validity to it... something about the object of 
communication being (also) about refining the social order.

   The question of understanding how things work can remain interesting apart 
from our need to make use of it, which can have emotional valence.

Well said!
One can try to be more model specific. I think i have referred to Ray 
Jackendoff's "three systems" view in threads before, in his lectures 
Language, Consciousness, Culture, available in book form. It is 
semi-concrete enough that one could think of making models. Thank you 
for this conversation.
Ditto...  I will try to follow up on Jackendoff (again?) and be more 
prepared for this type of conversation when it arises.


- Steve


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory was : 36 hour online game/research exercise

[Eric Smith]

Thanks Steve,

Many good things, and clearly this is an area where you have worked much harder 
and better to understand than I have, so I am happy to follow you. 

>>  Whether one is to worry about that or not is a matter of what you like to 
>> worry about, but clearly it is far from the kinds of uses of truth values 
>> that I mostly worry about in practical work.
> Hmm... I felt I was tracking you right up until this one... I do agree with 
> the spirit of "we worry about what we choose to worry about"... but are you 
> saying that Godel's incompleteness is sort of a parlor trick or that it just 
> defers the real question to a higher level of abstraction, not really 
> settling (or unsettling) anything?  (this is my suspicion and I do have some 
> hope that the line of inquiry/discussion you allude to here might help 
> sort that a bit?)

This was a self-preserving gambit of email, with apologies.  I know that any 
mention of Godel can tend to spin a thread with a _very_ long ring-down time by 
people who really care about this topic and have put a lot of time into it.  
Since I haven't done that, and since I am not able even to keep up with such a 
thread should it start, I wanted to avoid seeming to make any claim about any 
technical aspect of this question.  As an _outsider_ to very heavy formalisms, 
I have still been bothered by the status of axioms that seem to assign semantic 
content from syntactic constructions, without doing any actual work of 
denotation.  Not bothered that the axioms exist, but bothered because I don't 
know how to think about their status.  The notion that statements which cannot 
consistently be called false must thereby be true for a system to be defined is 
one such.  Another (which I will also only claim to be able to parrot as an 
outsider) is the notion that all well-formed predicates must be 
 regarded as referring to entities, which gets you into set-theoretic 
paradoxes.  

It would not be not my intention to assert that there is anything "wrong" with 
such constructions.  Rather, that they require a use of notions of truth or 
existence that is largely excluded by the activity of constructing denotations 
for real things.  My interest is then to get some window on what else 
contributes to constructing denotations in a reliable way.  (Confessed bias 
here on various science problems:  most notions start out in common language, 
and are taken as having some meaning -- examples: particle in physics; 
individual in evolutionary dynamics -- and only on the far side of learning how 
to do technical calculations for some more mundane reason do we learn that the 
words may still be usable, but that to be used reliably vis a vis the world, 
they can require some rather elaborate construction to attach a definition to.  
So I am interested in that anyway for material things, and it is some extension 
of that interest to wonder about sources of confidence or content in expr
 essions.)

>> Hintikka's approach was to define "that which is true" by claiming it must 
>> have a mapping to a strategy that is sure to win in some appropriately 
>> defined game.  "that which is false" is a strategy that can surely be beaten 
>> by some other strategy.  All the other stuff, which can neither surely win 
>> nor surely be beaten, is the middle, now not excluded.
> Smacks of Wolfram's Class I-IV cellular automata.   All CA are either A) 
> uninteresting because they achieve a steady (Class I) or cyclic state (Class 
> II) in finite time or B) uninteresting because they are chaotic and random 
> (Class III)... *EXCEPT* those which magically appear to be actually 
> *interesting* (Class IV), whatever that (actually interesting) means.

Let me propose (though this will be the last, because I am now on the border of 
making things up) that there is a better reading than that.  One could view it 
as something like the effort to make precise the rules of debate, for 
application to real settings rather than overly simplified trumped-up ones.  A 
debate should be like a game, in that there should be recognized moves and 
rules for judging how the state of the argument changes as a result of them.  
That problem is easy for chess; harder for football because of the scope for 
innovation and the hidden variables of physical athletics, even harder for 
gymnastics where artistic merit is part of the competitive goal, and very hard 
for debate.  An argument in a debate that can be said to win against any other 
argument seems a reasonable formalization of the practical notion of truth that 
we think of as "having the strength of evidence on that argument's side" by 
whatever rules govern the debate.  It is a virtue to recognize that the
  debate itself is a component of this judgment, meaning that different rules 
are possible.  Hence the problem of arriving at desired truth-values consists 
both of designing good rules of debate, and then also searching for good 
arguments within those rule

[FRIAM] Game Theory was : 36 hour online game/research exercise

[Steve Smith]

Eric -

 Where I got into this was actually the problem of the excluded middle.
When I was first introduced to this /di-lemma/ (self-reference intended) 
through the limitations of Aristotelian logic, I simply dismissed A 
logic as an incomplete model of semantics.   Either all questions can be 
answered true or false or they cannot: true, or false?


This just primed me for Tarski and eventually Zadeh on infinite valued 
logics and "fuzzy set/logic" and then yet more fun things like 
Dempster-Shafer and the Yager-Liu variants.

I was cringing that I had committed a rude thread hijack,
As someone who hijacks his own sentences within a thread, it didn't 
offend me, it represented an interesting (to me) tangent.   The pivot 
was the subtle homonym "game" as you point out.
since the use of "game" on the thread had emphasized the interface and 
the method for pooling participant inputs.  I was using the notion of 
"game" more in the sense of a defined interaction in which the 
structure is designed to solve a certain problem in a way that the 
designer hopes he has some theory of.
I would claim the two are tied in the sense that the point of pooling 
participant inputs and engaging a large pool through a "playful" 
interface were used specifically to try to solve a "certain problem in a 
way that the designer hopes he has some theory of."   Aside from the 
superficial motivations for making "everything into a game", I think 
that the game theoretic (and other formal) underpinnings are useful.   
In the vision cast by the SFSU teaser, one would imagine that there 
*might very well be* an underlying game theoretic abstraction of problem 
solving which structures the interactions between the various players in 
the drama to help direct their efforts toward actual problem solving, 
keep them out of cycles and even "obvious dead ends"?


I did a little reading of Hintikka a long time ago, and will try to 
say something correct, but caveat lector, because I get a lot of stuff 
wrong.

Welcome to the club.  I even get called on mine from time to time!
It is obvious (meaning, I think) that most of the struggle in saying 
anything is not even to be right, but to say something that has enough 
meaning to admit a right/wrong distinction.  Hence, while in di-lemma 
logic, it is fine to say that statements which are not true are 
thereby false, that seems to do very little good for a lot of what I 
find confusing and seek clarity on, in the world.  (Here I hope there 
is at least a peripheral relevance to the problem of pooling inputs).
Yes, very much so.   Crowd sourcing (pooling inputs?) problem solving is 
more than eliciting a million thumbs-up/down like/dislike votes...  
especially if you want to solve real world problems such as "deciding 
what the real problem is and how it relates to the real world, 
independent of any specific answer to the problem/question."
 Hence, you can make Godel-like claims about unprovable but true 
assertions, but they rely on assumptions that a suitable notion of 
meaning must be assignable to any syntactically valid construction, 
which then has an excluded middle.
Or maybe more to the point, the generalized /"law of excluded n+1th" 
/.   I twigged early in life to the realization that yes/no true/false 
tests/questions were often designed to reframe the test-taker answerer's 
perspective ("do you still beat your wife?") and by extension, the 
multiple choice tests tend to have the same flaw.
 Whether one is to worry about that or not is a matter of what you 
like to worry about, but clearly it is far from the kinds of uses of 
truth values that I mostly worry about in practical work.
Hmm... I felt I was tracking you right up until this one... I do agree 
with the spirit of "we worry about what we choose to worry about"... but 
are you saying that Godel's incompleteness is sort of a parlor trick or 
that it just defers the real question to a higher level of abstraction, 
not really settling (or unsettling) anything? (this is my suspicion and 
I do have some hope that the line of inquiry/discussion you allude to 
here might help sort that a bit?)


Hintikka's approach was to define "that which is true" by claiming it 
must have a mapping to a strategy that is sure to win in some 
appropriately defined game.  "that which is false" is a strategy that 
can surely be beaten by some other strategy.  All the other stuff, 
which can neither surely win nor surely be beaten, is the middle, now 
not excluded.
Smacks of Wolfram's Class I-IV cellular automata.   All CA are either A) 
uninteresting because they achieve a steady (Class I) or cyclic state 
(Class II) in finite time or B) uninteresting because they are chaotic 
and random (Class III)... *EXCEPT* those which magically appear to be 
actually *interesting* (Class IV), whatever that (actually interesting) 
means.
 The pleasing thing about this would be that, for large games, the 
middle will probably grow combinatorially a lot faster than

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory Evolving

[Frank Wimberly]

Nick,

There is an old OR text that explains all this very clearly.  See if you
can get "Operations Research:  Applications and Algorithms" by Winston.
See if Clark's library has it.  It's too expensive to buy.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz  (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell)
Santa Fe, NM 87505   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 1:38 PM
To: Owen Densmore; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: lrudolph; echarles; Jkennison; sbarr
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory Evolving

Owen (and perhaps others)

So are you bashing at the first chapter?  

Here's how I understand a strictly dominant strategy. 

If you and I are players in a two player game with n different
strategies,
then

Strategy S2 is strictly dominant for you, if picking S2 will miximize
your
return for any particular move by me.  

Strategy S1 is strictly dominant for me, if your picking S1 and your
having
picked S2 in response maximizes my return.  

The cell S1/S2 is a Nash Equilibrium if in the S1 column there is no
value
greater for me other than the S1/S2 cell, and also in the S2 row, there
is
no value greater for you than that in the S1/s2 cell

Do I have this NEAR right

Nick 


> [Original Message]
> From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied
Complexity
Coffee Group 
> Date: 8/10/2006 11:59:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory Evolving
>
> Oops, *blush* .. sorry!
>
> I've read the start of Game Theory Evolving, and plan to complete the

> Whole Damn Thing.  None of the others though.
>
>  -- Owen
>
> Owen Densmore
> http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> > Owen,
> >
> > Game Theory Evolving.  (It was in the subject line.)
> >
> > Have you read any of the others
> >
> > N
> >




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory Evolving

[Nicholas Thompson]

Owen (and perhaps others)

So are you bashing at the first chapter?  

Here's how I understand a strictly dominant strategy. 

If you and I are players in a two player game with n different strategies,
then

Strategy S2 is strictly dominant for you, if picking S2 will miximize your
return for any particular move by me.  

Strategy S1 is strictly dominant for me, if your picking S1 and your having
picked S2 in response maximizes my return.  

The cell S1/S2 is a Nash Equilibrium if in the S1 column there is no value
greater for me other than the S1/S2 cell, and also in the S2 row, there is
no value greater for you than that in the S1/s2 cell

Do I have this NEAR right

Nick 


> [Original Message]
> From: Owen Densmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group 
> Date: 8/10/2006 11:59:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory Evolving
>
> Oops, *blush* .. sorry!
>
> I've read the start of Game Theory Evolving, and plan to complete the  
> Whole Damn Thing.  None of the others though.
>
>  -- Owen
>
> Owen Densmore
> http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org
>
>
> On Aug 10, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
> > Owen,
> >
> > Game Theory Evolving.  (It was in the subject line.)
> >
> > Have you read any of the others
> >
> > N
> >




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory Evolving

[Owen Densmore]

Oops, *blush* .. sorry!

I've read the start of Game Theory Evolving, and plan to complete the  
Whole Damn Thing.  None of the others though.

 -- Owen

Owen Densmore
http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org


On Aug 10, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Owen,
>
> Game Theory Evolving.  (It was in the subject line.)
>
> Have you read any of the others
>
> N
>



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] Game Theory Evolving

[Nicholas Thompson]

Owen, 

Game Theory Evolving.  (It was in the subject line.)

Have you read any of the others

N


> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: 
> Date: 8/10/2006 12:38:04 AM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 22
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
>   friam@redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>   http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Simulation and policy-making (Douglas Roberts)
>2. Re: Friam Digest, Vol 38, Issue 3 (Phil Henshaw)
>3. gintis's Game Theory Evolving (Nicholas Thompson)
>4. Re: gintis's Game Theory Evolving (Owen Densmore)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 22:00:12 -0600
> From: "Douglas Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Simulation and policy-making
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee
>   Group"  
> Message-ID:
>   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Phil,
>
> Not quite, unfortunately.  EpiSims, and other similar ABMs can all too
> easily be used to identify weaknesses and potential exploits of social
> infrastructures.  We did studies for the US DHS that demonstrated exactly
> this a couple of years ago when I still worked at LANL.  One example was
> when we simulated the release of a weaponized aerosol pneumonic plague
> disease agent in a certain busy subway station during a simulated rush
hour
> in a simulated Chicago with a simulated population of 6.2 million
people...
>
> --Doug
>
> On 8/9/06, Phil Henshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Those who want to use the tools of systems inquiry for secretly
generating
> > new kinds of weapons for central authorities to interfere with what
> > interests them, won't actually learn much and will cause great harm.
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil Henshaw   .?? ? `?.
> > ~~~
> > 680 Ft. Washington Ave
> > NY NY 10040
> > tel: 212-795-4844
> > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > explorations: www.synapse9.com
> >
> >  -Original Message-
> > *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On
> > Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:40 PM
> > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Simulation and policy-making
> >
> > Re: simulation and policy-making, a project that my group is working on
at
> > the request of the current Washington administration is helping to do
just
> > that.  At the request of a consortium of representatives from the White
> > House, Dept of Treasury, DHS, Dept. of State, and a few other
cabinet-level
> > political types, we have run numerous simulation experimental designs to
> > establish the bounds of the effectiveness of various intervention
strategies
> > for containing an H5N1 pandemic, should it occur in the US.  We are
using
> > three simulation codes: EpiSims, Epicast, and one from the Imperial
College
> > in the UK. The name of the project is "Models of Infectious Disease
Agent
> > Study" (MIDAS), and it is funded by NIH.  See
> >
> > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/press/releases/press02202006.html and
> > http://usinfo.state.gov/gi/Archive/2005/Aug/08-339612.html
> >
> > or do a google search on "MIDAS bird flu policy" for more info.
> >
> > --Doug
> >
> > On 8/8/06, Robert Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Oh I thank RAND are probably plenty ambitious in what they simulate
for
> > > the US govt. Just check out their research areas:
> > > http://www.rand.org/research_areas/
> > >
> > > Robert
> > >
> > >
> > > On 8/8/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Robert Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
> > > > > So if 'valid' simulations are being used to give the 'wrong'
> > > > answers, what
> > > > > does that tell us about simulation? Is there ever any hope of
> > > > objectivity
> > > > > (I'll give away the answer to that: no) or do all social
simulations
> > > > -
> > > > > political or economic - inevitably reflect the prejudices of their
> > > > author or
> > > > > funder?
> > > >
> > > > Validated simulations, by definition, reproduce something that the
> > > > authors (or
> > > > funders) deem relevant as a performance metric.  But that's not a
> > > > problem with
> > > > models or simulations, assuming the metrics are documented.  If the
> > > > authors or
> > > > funders are prone to choosing easy, low dimensional things to fit,
> > > > they just
> > > > need to be more ambitious.
> > > >
> > > >