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.

Viliam 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.)"