Evolutionary instability of Zero Determinant strategies demonstrates that winning isn't everything · HackerPapers discussions

Evolutionary instability of Zero Determinant strategies demonstrates that winning isn't everything — HN submission

Sun, 07 Feb 2016 06:41:31 GMT

Instability Zero Determinant [games shows] that winning isn't [all] (2012)

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

Evolutionary instability of Zero Determinant strategies demonstrates that winning isn't everything — mentioned by hsitz

Thu, 01 Aug 2013 16:17:50 GMT

The recent Adami/Hintze paper that is topic of this article is itself the paper that shows that the ZD strategy is not evolutionarily stable. The May 2012 Press/Dyson paper was what caused people to question what had been thought settled for 30 years, and Adami/Hintze paper pointed out mistakes/limitations of Press/Dyson's conclusion. Before Adami/Hintze paper is was not clear that ZD strategy "did not work out so well". You can download the Adami/Hintze paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2666

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Evolutionary instability of Zero Determinant strategies demonstrates that winning isn't everything — mentioned by ced

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:49:14 GMT

It's inspiring to note that Bill Press is 64 years old, and Freeman Dyson is 88! Here's a more technical explanation, gleaned from http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2666. Each prisoner dilemma round has four possible outcomes: CC, CD, DC and DD (C=Cooperate,D=Defect). We study probabilistic strategies which depend only on the previous round, so for instance, P(player 1 plays C at round i+1|CD was played at round i)=0.3. From the paper: Such games can be described by a Markov process defined by the four probabilities that characterize each of the two player’s strategies [9] (because this is an…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Evolutionary instability of Zero Determinant strategies demonstrates that winning isn't everything — mentioned by forrestthewoods

Fri, 17 Aug 2012 04:44:32 GMT

This is roughly the 5th article on a "Revolution in Game Theory" that I've seen and not a single one of them has successfully described what the so called revolutionary strategy is. Here is a direct link to a PDF of a paper defining the Zero Determinant Strategy. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.2666v1.pdf I don't really understand it. Neither do journalists it seems. Can someone explain?

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.