Re: Optimal Backgammon (was: Re: Game Theory)
- From: David C. Ullrich <ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 09:36:12 -0500
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 09:47:35 -0500, David C. Ullrich
<ullrich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>[...]
>
>Whether that's interesting in one sense depends
>on whether using the Brower Fixed Point Theorem
>this way is commonplace in number theory.
Oops, of course that was a typo for "game theory".
Anyway, never mind, I finally looked up a little
bit of stuff, and this is of course not the first
application of BFT in game theory, for example it's
used in showing the existence of Nash equilibria.
>Whether it's interesting in another sense
>depends on whether always playing so as to
>maximize E gives you a non-negative expected
>value regardless of your opponent's play.
>(Or for that matter if you play always
>optimizing E does it follow that there _is_
>a well-defined expected value, given an
>opponent's strategy?)
But I'm still curious about this.
>>Keith Ramsay
>>
>>P.S. There was last month a piece in one of the usual math
>>journals about the notion of fair division in Aristotle and
>>in the Talmud. Pretty interesting.
>
>
>************************
>
>David C. Ullrich
************************
David C. Ullrich
.
- References:
- Game Theory
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Game Theory
- From: Keith Ramsay
- Optimal Backgammon (was: Re: Game Theory)
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Game Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: A different RSA challenge!
- Next by Date: Re: HISTORICAL CHALLENGE TO MR>ANDREW WILES ABOUT FLT
- Previous by thread: Optimal Backgammon (was: Re: Game Theory)
- Next by thread: Re: Optimal Backgammon (was: Re: Game Theory)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|