Perfect. Then you know that a pointer to something isn't the same as the thing it's pointing to. That's exactly what I'm getting at. In this analogy pointers==words, and ideas==the things being pointed at. When this thingee that I'm yapping about happens, peeps have cross-linked/whatev pointers. This thingee actually has a name: Dogmatic Word Association.

With me so far?

FYI: I worked my way through college doing systems programming. Mainly compiler writing, microcode, instruction set design, and ISO language standardization. Just in case you forgot that I'm not a fool.

I am with you so far.

Well, technically they are orthogonal but I can concede the point.

OK. From there we can conclude...

Words have no meanings.
The phrase "redefine the language" is gibberish.

This is too reductionistic. The analogy fails because the socially constructed way in which words act as signs and symbols is not really very much like the internals of a computer program. Words do have meanings. Their meanings are constructed through common use, and thus change in complicated ways, both over time and between individual users. Because of all that complexity, a great many words may be polysemic, and their meanings may be contested, and there may be something like a politics of words, if you will, but nevertheless words have meanings. It's just that meaning isn't some objective property of the physical world.

"Redefine the language" more or less refers to using some specific language (a phrase or term) in a way that wouldn't be recognizable to the majority of other people who also use that same language.

I'm confused.

I think ST is heading down Wittgenstein Avenue, an interesting route.

Well, there's definitely no reason to talk to people on the internet who don't think words have meanings. For all they know this post is ordering chinese takeout.

Agreed.

Fails at doing what? You can't answer that question. The reason you can't answer that question, is I haven't gotten there yet. I'd for you to jump into this chat. But I'm going to remind you: I don't have a formal 'position', I'm not making an 'argument', and there are no #win or #lose.

Analogies don't "fail". They are either apt or not.

I mean I luv youz guyz ... don't eva change !!!1! and all, but as I mentioned, you can be a little bit exasperating from time to time. Let's see, I did mention I got a Philosophy BA from UCSD. And I just gotta think youz guyz got a rusty Occam's Razor or something. Let's see, dude has a Philosophy Degree, here are my options (a) he's probably going to start yapping about how words and meanings interact, (b) ZOMG... the poor fool doesn't know that "the socially constructed way in which words act as signs and symbols is not really very much like the internals of a computer program. Words do have meanings. Their meanings are constructed through common use, and thus change in complicated ways, both over time and between individual users. Because of all that complexity, a great many words may be polysemic, and their meanings may be contested, and there may be something like a politics of words, if you will, but nevertheless words have meanings. It's just that meaning isn't some objective property of the physical world."... ZOMG... I better quick tell him that ""the socially constructed way in which words act as signs and symbols is not really very much like the internals of a computer program. Words do have meanings. Their meanings are constructed through common use, and thus change in complicated ways, both over time and between individual users. Because of all that complexity, a great many words may be polysemic, and their meanings may be contested, and there may be something like a politics of words, if you will, but nevertheless words have meanings. It's just that meaning isn't some objective property of the physical world."

Youz guyz always pick (b)

Wrong.

The majority of people who also use English have no idea what "zero sum game" means. So far, I'm the only person ITT who has demonstrated they do. Nobody but Hold'em players say 'dominate' for a 78-82% advantage. Are Hold'em players "redefining the language"?

No.

It's all fun & games, but if everyone would stop trying to figure out what I'm doing and just let me do it... well iDK, we never get there. But it would be different, if nothing else.

Of course I can. You made an analogy. And then afterwards you wrote: "From there we can conclude...." This implies that the analogy is intended to provide support for the conclusion. But your conclusion is not justified by the analogy, precisely because the analogy is not apt.

I was responding to your claim that the phrase "redefine the language" is gibberish. I was not responding to the claim that your specific use of the term "zero sum game" entailed redefining the language.

I agree with you that your usage of zero-sum agrees with the common understanding of the phrase in game theory (AFAIK), and so you are not actually trying to redefine that language. I disagree with you that the phrase "redefine the language" is gibberish.

I omitted the big part in the middle, but it seems like you're basically saying I should give you more credit and ignore what you actually say in favor of some meaning that might be less ridiculous. I usually try to respond to whatever the best possible version of someone's argument is, even if I think they are stating it a little weirdly, so sure. But in this case I don't see how to interpret your post as saying the opposite of what it actually says. I don't see how it's some useful prologue to a more nuanced post where you say "well actually words do have meanings". But by all means carry on :P

edit: also as far as giving you credit, you have to excuse me a little bit. People seem to argue all sorts of things I think are obviously absurd. I tend to take them at face value anymore. I'm not a big fan of the socratic method in forum posts

Or... maybe that guy is making an analogy, and you are nitpicking the analogy itself.

Would it help if I stipulated that "written communication is capable of conveying meanings"? Cause I'm willing to do that.

Just a joke. You can be a great programmer and still be a fool about non-programming things. It made me laugh, but I like jabbing wil so we know I'm easily amused...

Wrong. That would only be true if I was 'arguing'. As I keep mentioning, I'm not 'arguing'.

I'm trying to explain something. My plan is to leverage some preexisting knowledge. People who are involved with math, philosophy, and computer science necessarily have intimate knowledge of this something I'm trying to explain. That's why I asked about those particular disciplines. If he would have said "no", I would have never mentioned computers.

The plan is to start with the leverage knowledge position X, then build from there to knowledge position B, then to C, D, etc as needed. Often times I'm going to try to make a leap from B->D to speed this shiz up. That's what I tried here. Often times I'm going to fail, like I just did. In which case I'll punt, which am right now. And then fall back to try B->C first.

The reason they seem ridiculous to you is you are not understanding what I'm yapping on about.

Sadly, there is no alternative. Believe me, I wish that there was.

No, that's all good. I just don't get it, and I'm curious.

Or, I could tell a story. This one is actually true...

To my FWs, I suggested meeting at McGregor's, which is a bar & grill next to our union hall. Right away, I got emails back which were all basically little essays about ZOMG what incredible fool I am because we can't have a meeting where it's crowded & loud/etc/etc.

All these FWs know me in real life, none of them had ever been to McGregor's, they know I'm a bar drinker, and none of them think I'm a fool. WTF is going on ??

IDGAF about POTUSBOWL/etc. This above phenomenon fascinates me. It fascinates me IRL, and it fascinates me when youz guyz do it.

Thoughts or Comments on my story?

I'm willing to concede this in the context of this conversation.

This is a discussion from a different thread, but I believe the classical definition of "zero sum game" is that every entry in the payoff matrix adds up to zero, not just that the sum of the entire payoff matrix is zero. However, that is not relevant to this discussion so let's continue with it.

Assuming he's not completely making up his college background, and I don't think he is, how do you get from multiple interests that all require precise, focused thought and the ability to express it externally (code, proofs, phil papers), to..... this. Stimulant abuse? Hypomania? B12 deficiency? Something on the schizo spectrum? The duration and level of disordered thought and the complete obliviousness to it/loss of control over it seems weighted to the latter.

OK VG. I didn't expect to get here this quick, or even at all.

OK, lets go back to how you use your word 'reward'. I was just clowning before when I filled in "Ignored" and "Punished". I know those aren't right. But I'd like you to tell me, if you would, using your words as you use them, what are your words for "0 EV" and "-EV".

-EV	??	not 'Punishment'
0 EV	??	not 'Ignored'
+EV	Reward

How I got here is a pretty boring story. I've had plenty of random jobs, like substitute teaching and making license plates at Folsom Prison. But basically, like I said, I grew up in San Diego. I worked my way through UCSD as a systems programmer. Then to my family's delight, I bet the bases. After that I bought a house at the beach, and was a manufacturing engineer, and a construction estimator. Now I'm a caregiver. Oh yeah... my dog's name is Sabo, which is short for sabotage.

What I'm trying to point out is very tricky for a lot of people to get. What can I say. For someone like you, who is a below replacement level SMPer, it ain't never going to happen. Suffice to say, you're not my target audience. But I could be wrong, and I hope I am.

Right, but again, I believe this meant to mean they always balance out, regardless of the actions taken.

"So, in a two-player zero-sum game, whatever one player wins, the other loses."

https://cs.stanford.edu/people/erobe...eory/zero.html

Assuming the only possible actions are X and Y, and the players are A and B, the game where:

A does X, B does X, payoffs are 1,1
A does X, B does Y, payoffs are 1, -1
A does Y, B does X, payoffs are -1, 1
A does Y, B does Y, payoffs are -1, -1

is not a zero-sum game, because there are combinations of actions (i.e. X, X or Y, Y) for which the payoffs do not sum to zero.




I have not ignored your other question about EV but I will have to come back to it tomorrow.

Yeah, but you believe wrong.

No hurries. Ever.

Ah Leftists, continuing the segregationist policies of their forefathers:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-little-secret

San Francisco is culturally diverse, but the diversity is strictly segregated. We call this historical character, and character can only be maintained by keeping outsiders out. Neighborhoods can’t exactly come out and impose cultural segregation, but they can enforce zoning laws. By blocking new buildings and preventing the renovation of old ones, residents ensure that the demographic makeup stays the same year after year.

I am a game theorist. Zero-sum game definitely means that at every end node (every possible outcome) the sum of the payoffs to all players adds to zero. This is not open to debate.