Re: Religiosity down 9% since 2005. Non-religious/atheism grows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdfasdf32
You really have a hard time with the english language. I said "To be fair, that's more than most people" to say that by knowing ONLY what you learned from the movie, you know more about Nash Equilibriums than most people.
Since you're quoting newguys posts and forcing me to read them: newguy, the reason you don't understand Nash is that you suggested that the Nash equilibrium for Prisoners Dilemma is to both co-operate, which is the exact opposite of the right answer. In brief, a Nash equilibrium is the solution which means neither player can improve their payoff unilaterally. While the best result for both players in PD is to both co-operate, this is not the same thing as the Nash equilibrium, as one player can decide to say 'f- it' and improve his payoff by defecting.
Once again, you literally don't understand anything.
Re: Religiosity down 9% since 2005. Non-religious/atheism grows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdfasdf32
Please provide a source.
Quote:
The sign of the cross, represented in its simplest form by a crossing of two lines at right angles, greatly antedates, in both the East and the West, the introduction of Christianity. It goes back to a very remote period of human civilization. In fact, some have sought to attach to the widespread use of this sign, a real ethnographic importance. It is true that in the sign of the cross the decorative and geometrical concept, obtained by a juxtaposition of lines pleasing to the sight, is remarkably prominent; nevertheless, the cross was originally not a mere means or object of ornament, and from the earliest times had certainly another — i.e. symbolico-religious — significance. The primitive form of the cross seems to have been that of the so-called "gamma" cross (crux gammata), better known to Orientalists and students of prehistoric archæology by its Sanskrit name, swastika.
At successive periods this was modified, becoming curved at the extremities, or adding to them more complex lines or ornamental points, which latter also meet at the central intersection.
So, I guess the Catholic Encyclopedia would classify the swastika as one of the earliest cruciform symbols. I suppose in some sense this can be considered a "root." Though, in my mind it seems hard to beat just two straight lines.
The symbol of the swastika was used in a lot of pre-christian societies, not just in Asia.
I guess you guys are saying that the cross is a direct descendant of the swastika? I don't know - but I didn't take Newguy's statement as that so much, as I understood him to be saying that the swastika was an earlier use - its pretty hard to put this kind of symbolism on a time line.
I guess people have said Jesus was India - St. Issa - during the so-called lost years, and at that time he could have been exposed to such symbolism. People say a lot of things though, and the St. Issa stuff isn't really taken seriously I guess.
Really, who knows... however, I would think the Buddhist missionaries of the time certainly had an influence on Christianity and by extension, I suppose you could argue an influence on its symbolism.
Re: Religiosity down 9% since 2005. Non-religious/atheism grows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
Since you're quoting newguys posts and forcing me to read them: the reason you don't understand Nash is that you suggested that the Nash equilibrium for Prisoners Dilemma is to both co-operate, which is the exact opposite of the right answer. In brief, a Nash equilibrium is the solution which means neither player can improve their payoff unilaterally. While the best result for both players in PD is to both co-operate, this is not the same thing as the Nash equilibrium, as one player can decide to say 'f- it' and improve his payoff by defecting.
Once again, you literally don't understand anything.
yes so you assume im stupid and didn't give a valid answer because you were bred in a non nash world. If we looked at a planet that only knew and acted nash, the solution there would be nash AND the aliens would think we are retarded for thinking any different.
So OP is looking for a strategy to solve the game with irl the solution isn't a game strategy at all, its to teach the children properly, so when faced with such a dilemma the act with nash intentions and they know their partner will do the same thing.
Which world is stupid the one where we build theories that **** each other over and therefore ****s the world over and therefore **** our selves over or a nash world in which we don't need these strategies.?
Re: Religiosity down 9% since 2005. Non-religious/atheism grows.
Curiosity got the better of me, this once.
I'm making no claim about the moral value of Nash, but you are wrong that the Nash equilibrium is to maximise payoff for all parties. Bleating on about "nash intentions" is just wrong. You don't understand Nash. You've watched a Hollywood movie. If you genuinely care about understanding game theory, there's a great free online Yale course with an awesome lecturer.
Re: Religiosity down 9% since 2005. Non-religious/atheism grows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nek777
I don't know - but I didn't take Newguy's statement as that so much, as I understood him to be saying that the swastika was an earlier use - its pretty hard to put this kind of symbolism on a time line.
exactly and when someone does its kinda alarming, the one thing you can observe with out a 'source' is that movement of mankind, and when you see it its entirety you can extract irrefutable understandings.
Not that the cross is the direct descendant of the swastika but that they are related movements, coming from an older time, a lot older..
Re: Religiosity down 9% since 2005. Non-religious/atheism grows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234
Whoever told you that those things can be sorted was telling you a lie.
LOL, the idea that we can sort truth from lies is a lie? GTFO with this pseudo-intellectual BS. We both know there is a distinction between truth and lies and that this is demonstrable, pretending otherwise is just childish.
EDIT
I wasn't sure whether it was sophomore philosophising or some hipster-like attachment to Eastern religion that inspired this nonsense. Checking your recent posts I guess it's the latter.
Re: Religiosity down 9% since 2005. Non-religious/atheism grows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumby
Curiosity got the better of me, this once.
I'm making no claim about the moral value of Nash, but you are wrong that the Nash equilibrium is to maximise payoff for all parties. Bleating on about "nash intentions" is just wrong. You don't understand Nash. You've watched a Hollywood movie. If you genuinely care about understanding game theory, there's a great free online Yale course with an awesome lecturer.
edit: OMG you cretin, Liv IS using Nash. You must be a troll. Won't be reading any more of your posts.
Not suggesting im smart or all my nash info is correct, but people keep suggesting i only know the movie...
When the hero folds k7s but he should be shoving k2s+ he has to remember that he didn't just make that mistake of folding k7s but instead he missed the total ev (JBuX) from k2s-k7s.
This is helpful in judging the size of our mistakes when we decided to make marginal shoves (or calls).
This happens on the other side of the spectrum as well if the hero pushes k2s but he should have folded k7s. His total ev mistake is actually from k2s-k7s again.
If k7s is the last hand we should push then we can compare the total ev of player A who folds k7s to player B who shoves k6s and we can start to see how people with quite different shoving (some loose some tight), can show similar results when it comes to short stack play.
I'm still basic but thats more than the movie.
And I admit I haven't read much about Nash Eq, I only know things like how to extract 3bet shoving ranges and Min/Calling ranges from the equilibrium shove ranges using a certain kinda of coefficient. I don't know the whole actual math theory behind it all.
I'll be honest I kind of think Nash might be a time lord himself.
And for the PrisnoerDilemna, I admit I haven't really grasped it, but if me and you are ever in that situation I will keep silent in the name of Nash for you and me. And I'm gonna teach my kids to do that (prob won't have kids though).
Quote:
edit: OMG you cretin, Liv IS using Nash. You must be a troll. Won't be reading any more of your posts.
perhaps i still don't understand but I realize she is using nash to win, but I am suggesting that everyone uses the nash equilibrium for there strategy. But in order to do that you have to realize this world isn't about the self.
Last edited by newguy1234; 08-18-2012 at 05:42 PM.
Re: Religiosity down 9% since 2005. Non-religious/atheism grows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Beer
LOL, the idea that we can sort truth from lies is a lie? GTFO with this pseudo-intellectual BS. We both know there is a distinction between truth and lies and that this is demonstrable, pretending otherwise is just childish.
EDIT
I wasn't sure whether it was sophomore philosophising or some hipster-like attachment to Eastern religion that inspired this nonsense. Checking your recent posts I guess it's the latter.
I don't think the 'eastern religion' nuts consider me a sophomore.
As for demonstrable, I can send you to some thread where I show you why thats wrong but the basic Idea is we can demonstrate anything to be true, but we only extract the truth we want. Whatever truth you adhere to, science will prove it. You can't prove me wrong, because you already adhere to the fact that im wrong. As soon as you let go of the adherence that I'm wrong, you will instantly see that I'm correct and so were you.
Re: Religiosity down 9% since 2005. Non-religious/atheism grows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newguy1234
Not suggesting im smart or all my nash info is correct, but people keep suggesting i only know the movie...
When the hero folds k7s but he should be shoving k2s+ he has to remember that he didn't just make that mistake of folding k7s but instead he missed the total ev (JBuX) from k2s-k7s.
This is helpful in judging the size of our mistakes when we decided to make marginal shoves (or calls).
This happens on the other side of the spectrum as well if the hero pushes k2s but he should have folded k7s. His total ev mistake is actually from k2s-k7s again.
If k7s is the last hand we should push then we can compare the total ev of player A who folds k7s to player B who shoves k6s and we can start to see how people with quite different shoving (some loose some tight), can show similar results when it comes to short stack play.
I'm still basic but thats more than the movie.
And I admit I haven't read much about Nash Eq, I only know things like how to extract 3bet shoving ranges and Min/Calling ranges from the equilibrium shove ranges using a certain kinda of coefficient. I don't know the whole actual math theory behind it all.
I'll be honest I kind of think Nash might be a time lord himself.
And for the PrisnoerDilemna, I admit I haven't really grasped it, but if me and you are ever in that situation I will keep silent in the name of Nash for you and me. And I'm gonna teach my kids to do that (prob won't have kids though).
perhaps i still don't understand but I realize she is using nash to win, but I am suggesting that everyone uses the nash equilibrium for there strategy. But in order to do that you have to realize this world isn't about the self.
That poker example has ZERO, get that, ZERO to do with Nash.
Two Plus Two
Linear Mode
