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.

DataPacRat comments on Open Thread, Apr. 20 - Apr. 26, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

3 Post author: Gondolinian 20 April 2015 12:02AM

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

Comments (350)

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

Comment author: DataPacRat 22 April 2015 01:32:55AM 0 points [-]

Aha - at http://www.pnas.org/content/109/26/10409.full.pdf , zero-determinant strategies are defined by two factors, chi and phi, and at least when chi is 1, maximum phi results in the strategy of Tit-for-Tat, which is exactly what I was looking for.

Hm... is there a mathematical notation for the maximum of a variable, like |x| indicates the absolute value of x?

Comment author: DataPacRat 23 April 2015 03:52:10PM 0 points [-]

In addition, when chi is at the extortionate level of 3.5, then when phi is maxxed out, the odds of player X cooperating if player Y cooperated last turn are 66.6% or 50%, depending on whether player X also cooperated on the previous turn. Thus, in order to give player Y enough of an incentive to want to cooperate - providing odds of at least 50% of ending up with CC - player X may have their own incentive to set chi to something below 3.5. As it happens, there are two mathematical constants a little below that that might be chosen - the inverse Fibonacci constant, also called psi, about 3.36, or the more widely-known pi, 3.14.