Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nash equilibrium"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(reply) |
|||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
:The only Nash equilibrium is the "confess/confess" scenario (in which both prisoners get a 2 year punishment), which is sub-optimal, compared to the possible outcome if both participants cooperated. | :The only Nash equilibrium is the "confess/confess" scenario (in which both prisoners get a 2 year punishment), which is sub-optimal, compared to the possible outcome if both participants cooperated. | ||
:I could insert this into the article here, but it would be slightly redundant since this is explained in the PD article (with a fancy table and all that). --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 20:54, 5 May 2007 (EDT) | :I could insert this into the article here, but it would be slightly redundant since this is explained in the PD article (with a fancy table and all that). --[[User:JLindon|JLindon]] 20:54, 5 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :: That's good stuff, and I see your concern about redundancy. I'll supplement the entry and you can improve as you think best. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:06, 5 May 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 01:06, May 6, 2007
Your changes are excellent but it's not clear to me why you say the Nash equilibrium is sub-optimal for the prisoner's dilemma. Could you elaborate on that a bit more? Thanks.--Aschlafly 19:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
- Well, the prisoner's dilemma is one of those cases where the Nash equilibrium is not the Pareto optimal solution.
- The optimal case would be for both participants to stay silent (in the specific example in the article, both would get six months). However, this is not a Nash equilibrium: If A knows that B chose to stay silent, A would switch to "confess" and improve his own outcome (causing a 10 year punishment for B).
- The only Nash equilibrium is the "confess/confess" scenario (in which both prisoners get a 2 year punishment), which is sub-optimal, compared to the possible outcome if both participants cooperated.
- I could insert this into the article here, but it would be slightly redundant since this is explained in the PD article (with a fancy table and all that). --JLindon 20:54, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
- That's good stuff, and I see your concern about redundancy. I'll supplement the entry and you can improve as you think best. Thanks.--Aschlafly 21:06, 5 May 2007 (EDT)