>Well maybe, take it up with the architects of the PD, Taylor, Rapaport, vN & >M, all of whom insist on the noncom condition, frankly,
Sorry mate; I'm clearly getting your back up here and I didn't mean to. The fact that communication has to be more than "cheap talk" if it is to be more than a wheel which doesn't turn anything in the mechanism, is pretty well known in the literature, though it probably came later than von Neumann and Morgenstern. In fact a lot of it is the reason why Harsanyi and Selten shared the Nobel equally with Nash, although they didn't get a film written about them. I'd be wary of relying on Rapaport too heavily; as far as I know, his main contribution to game theory have been a fallacy (the Symmetry Fallacy in the one-shot PD) and joint responsibility for all the horrendous confusion engendered by that book "The Evolution of Co-operation" (summarised at http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/1/1/review1.html ). Thomas Schelling's "Strategy of Conflict" is lumps better as a text on game theory from a political science point of view. anyway, whatever. I suspect that diminishing returns has set in on this by now dd ___________________________________________________ Email Disclaimer This communication is for the attention of the named recipient only and should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. ___________________________________________________
