"Eric M. McDaniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Since the amount of > > > money in the "economy" here was fixed, paying 2 to 25 cents > > to reduce > > > another person's wealth by one dollar sounds like a pretty good > > > investment decision to me, > > in > > > effect raising one's own wealth by between 75 and 98 cents. Is this > > right? > > > > Gustavo replied: > > > > There's something wrong with your math. > > > > Let the state of the game be defined by ((Absolute wealth of > > Player1, Absolute wealth of Player2), (Relative wealth of > > Player1, Relative wealth of Player2 )) > > > > So at t0, the state of the game is (($50, $50), (50%, 50%)) > > > > After the predatory move, this state of the game is about > > (($49.98, $49.00), (50.49%, 49.51%)). > > > > So, yes, if the goal is to maximize relative wealth, the > > predator is being rational, especially if the total wealth of > > the game is small. > > > I'm not sure I understand how my math was wrong, but it's likely since I > am mathematically impaired. However, I think our points are the same: >
You seemed to imply that if it costs me 2c to set you back $1, then that action would raise my relative wealth by 98c, when in fact it would raise it by about 49c. This is an approximation that would only be exact at infinity. (try starting with both players having $2 to see what I mean) Gustavo http://www.optimizelife.com
