Quote:
Originally Posted by mynameisjim
I'm not sure I follow what you are trying to say here.
The point is that observations don't match with what traditional game theory would predict. Unless you start to use interactive epistemology (which is now an off-shoot of game theory) to factor in why people act rationally or non-rationally.
But you originally said that it is impossible to challenge a nash equilibrium because nobody has which is not a correct statement. There are an infinite number of situations where the predictions of game theory (including nash equilibrium) do not match observations regardless of the variations.
But my specialty is naked women, not game theory or the work of Nash.  |
nash theis paper was over 200 pages long. The mathimatical formula for his equilbrium was very expansive.
it handled multi-participant/ multi-choice algorithms.
Many of the theories which were considered challenges (interact epistemology) were in fact explained properly by the full mathimatical formula, and the expression of the actions either by the multi-participant or multi-choice variables.
It is only when people try and force a multi-choice or multi partricipant nashian equilbrium into a binomial decision matrix (drm vs non drm) simply because the simplist form of the equation (prisoners dilema) does that.
In many case it will work because the assumption that created that forced senerio results in pushing the concequences of the matrix forward.
as long as you force i binomial matrix on a muti-nomial matrix and fight against the predicted pattern you are going to lose.
If you take into account all the multi-nomial characteristics, you can add things that will change the nash equilibrium point to something you really want to happen.
see product placement as a classic example of turning a binomial participant model into a tri-nomial participant model.