« 3.3 Fuzzy Logic | HomePage | 3.4 Game Theory »
Thursday, June 02, 20051117689300
3.4 Game Theory
Note: This is an excerpt from a draft of my thesis, A Computer Model of National Behavior. The introduction and table of contents
are also available
3.4 Game Theory
Related to the earlier discussion of war and computer games, game theory is a heavily mathematical approach to rational conflict. Roger McCain states that “Game theory is a distinct and interdisciplinary approach to the study of human behavior. The disciplines most involved in game theory are mathematics, economics and the other social and behavioral sciences.”
The most promising aspect of game theory is that it models competition between rational actors. Spangler breaks game theory into three parts. The interaction can be for “zero sum,” “positive sum,” or “negative sum” games. In zero sum games, the gain of one can only come from the loss of others. In positive sum games, all players can end better off, while in negative sum games all of the players can end the game worse off. Lastly using formal game theory would allow rigorous examination of the model. However, ultimately game theory cannot be much used in the construction of the model adopted by this thesis.
Game theory closely examines competition. Questions such as “What is rational when not all information is known,” “How often is cooperation rational,” and “Are moral rules emerged from rational competition” are asked by the field. All of this is directly applicable to the model. To be valid, the model will have to model nations acting rationally, which is a direct concern of game theory.
Game theory's applicability to zero sum and non zero sum games is also alluring. In the real world, nations fight wars where each side temporarily sacrifices its own long term growth in order to hurt even more the health of the other. However, many aspects of the real world are not like this. A growing world economy allows all nations to be wealthier than before, which allows them to support more people and have more absolute power. It would be very useful to use a formal guide such as game theory which has this flexibility built in to it.
The formal logic underlying game theory is also an advantage. Like any mathematical statement, a game can be evaluated for a value. It can also be logically tested to see if it is true or false. This would remove some subjectivity from the model, and open the door to further formal methods, such as Z or predicate calculus.
Sadly, this last benefit is also a significant drawback. It must be stressed that game theory is an advanced subdiscipline of mathematics. A comprehensive utilization of game theory would be more appropriate for a dissertation. It would require expertise beyond the scope of this project. Therefore, while the basic lessons of game theory should be remembered throughout this thesis and ensuing model, the use of the mathematics of game theory will not be incorporated into the model used in this thesis.
Computer Science Thesis Index
00:15 Posted by Dan tdaxp in Thesis | Permalink | Comments (4) | Email this
Comments
Is this a fancy way of saying, whoever has the power and/or acts preemptively, can reach out and take the spoils?
Gee, when did we need predicate calculus for that?
Put another way: application of game theory, or even OODA to warfare is invalid without a recognition that the end state of war in the nuclear age is unacceptable, and without including consequences after the taking of spoils, i.e. blowback.
I'm not just reminding you that war is an obscenity or that its origins are always men with greed and power lust, duping soldiers and society into fights, hiding behind a curtain of lies and deception.
I'm straightforwardly telling you your work is trash.
Todd Boyle Kirkland WA
www.ledgerism.net
www.refusenik.org
Posted by: Todd Boyle | Sunday, July 31, 2005
Todd,
Section 3.4 of my thesis, "Game Theory," serves to familiarize the reader with a concept that my thesis does not use. It is not a moral of game theory, either in theory or in practice.
Objective tests are generally preferable to subjective tests because they are easier to duplicate. However, they can be less meaningful. After I finished my research I learned about the comparative method from a RAND paper (http://www.rand.org/publications/DB/DB311/, that I beleive may have been preferable to any test I used.
Many wars have "ended" since the dawn of nuclear age with an acceptable victory by one side (Vietnam War, by Hanoi) or the other (Cold War, by the United States). Wars do not end because of nuclear weapons, nor do they have to end badly for both sides.
I agree that unintended consequences are a serious concern for the man plotting war. However, this has been true since the beginning. Likewise, the unintented consequences are likely to be "unknown uknowns" -- things we do not know that we do not even know we don't know -- so it's difficult to examine them directly.
I agree that the origin of violent human conflict can be found in the imperfectability of man. Recognition of the "fallen" state of man is a major step to victory in conflict.
I thank you for your review, though I am happy that my thesis committee decided differently! :)
Are your web sites down? I could not load them.
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, July 31, 2005
Thank you, Dan,
Game theory is trash, like most systems of notation whether mathematical or verbal, because the symbols don't map to discrete things in the real universe and because the results of action are boundless, creating an impossiblility of a complete analysis.
These problems are compounded by moral hazard when the agencies paying for the study are invested in the outcome. IN the case of the U.S. military industrial congressional complex, the goals of their games are often mere self interest such as a raise, promotion or sales of a weapons system.
IN closing, I renouced my CPA license as the realization came that the entire system of notation, of measurement, in all the worlds' transaction ledgers is incomplete and deliberately maintained to exclude the legitmate interests of so many stakeholders (externalities) The result of these incomplete information systems is grossly defective decision process governing the allocation of the resources of all humanity. Of course this is not accidental.
Thanks for the report on my websites. Hit refresh a couple of times. Sometimes that is effective. I often wonder whether there's a man in the middle, residing between Directnic, my hosting company, and its visitors. In 2005 the Internet is no better and often worse than 1995.
Todd
Posted by: Todd Boyle | Sunday, July 31, 2005
Todd,
Thank you. I will keep trying to get to your site.
Do you have a fixed IP address that you could also try?
I agree that reducing the world to mathematics is troublesome. The reason the American military is increasingly pushing history (instead of business administration) as a field of study is that business school's fixation on "hard numbers" leaves too much out for people who have to work in human organizations.
(B-Schools have only a mixed record in producing people capable of running businesses, too, but that is a post for another time...)
One of my advisors had worked as a contractor for a major defense contractor, and he created a simulation of how the United States could "win" a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, exclusively using weapons systems supplied by that contractor. On the simulation side, he was the hardest to "get through," because he was so aware of the dangers of making the simulation come out the way you want.
Given how you left your old position because of how the numbers could be used corruptly, I would be interested in your opinion on corruption as a form of peer-to-peer social control.
http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/20/bribery_as_a_form_of_horizontal_control.html
Take care
-Dan
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, July 31, 2005