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.

James_Miller comments on [Link] Game Theory YouTube Videos - Less Wrong Discussion

16 Post author: James_Miller 06 August 2015 04:17PM

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

Comments (10)

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

Comment author: James_Miller 09 August 2015 12:14:18AM 0 points [-]

You are right that the usual assumption in game theory is that payoffs are ordinal. When I teach game theory I find it useful to mostly ignore this fact because some of my students (those who took Intermediate micro) have spent a lot of time on ordinal utility while most of the class has never encounter the concept before. In my video lectures I ignore the ordinal assumption except for assuming that players seek to maximize their expected payoff. (This follows from ordinal utility.) But all of the solutions I give would still be correct if you interpret the payoffs as ordinal.

Comment author: Viliam 09 August 2015 12:25:12PM 1 point [-]

Maybe you could just mention this briefly, as a sidenote, without theory. Something like: "Note that if we'd replace the numbers 1, 2, 3 with 1001, 1002, 1003, or 1000, 2000, 3000, nothing changes. (Show three versions of the same simple decision tree.)"