You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

benelliott comments on Freaky unfairness - Less Wrong Discussion

17 Post author: benelliott 12 January 2011 10:08AM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (10)

Comments (10)

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

Comment author: benelliott 12 January 2011 06:35:28PM *  0 points [-]

"any coalition of players that decides to deviate (collectively or individually) cannot win total payoff greater than their group security value"

This phrase was what caused me to assume that a strong Nash Equilibrium was meant.

Comment author: Wei_Dai 12 January 2011 07:02:31PM *  0 points [-]

Ok, after re-reading his post, I agree he probably did mean "strong Nash Equilibrium". Can you make a note in your post that both of you are really talking about the Strong Nash equilibrium? As far as I can tell, 'all players run Freaky Fairness' is actually a (plain) Nash equilibrium so the current wording is rather confusing.

Comment author: benelliott 12 January 2011 07:36:08PM 0 points [-]

Changed it, and I think you are correct about it being an ordinary Nash Equilibrium (one of infinitely many).

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit