cousin_it comments on Fair Division of Black-Hole Negentropy: an Introduction to Cooperative Game Theory - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Wei_Dai 16 July 2009 04:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (34)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: cousin_it 20 July 2009 09:37:50AM *  1 point [-]

If such transfer of resources is allowed, your share of negentropy must depend only on your contribution, the total contribution and the number of players. If we further assume that zero contribution implies zero share, it's straightforward to prove (by division in half, etc.) that proportional allocation is the only possible scheme.

This still isn't very satisfying. John Nash would have advised us to model the situation with free transfer as a game within some larger class of games and apply some general concept like the Shapley value to make the answer pop out. But I'm not yet sure how to do that.

Comment author: Perplexed 14 February 2011 01:25:43PM 0 points [-]

If such transfer of resources is allowed, your share of negentropy must depend only on your contribution, the total contribution and the number of players. If we further assume that zero contribution implies zero share, it's straightforward to prove (by division in half, etc.) that proportional allocation is the only possible scheme.

One difficulty with proportional allocation is deciding how to measure contributions. Do you divide proportionately to mass contributed, or do you divide proportionately to negentropy contributed?