Timeline for Is perfect play possible in continuous rock-paper-scissors? game "step size" vs. "acceleration"
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S May 25, 2018 at 19:10 | history | suggested | DukeZhou |
added the infinite game tag b/c iterated RPS with no threshold to halt would seem to be an infinite game.
|
|
| May 25, 2018 at 17:48 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 25, 2018 at 19:10 | |||||
| Mar 30, 2011 at 3:19 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | In any reasonable model of the stock market, a fundamental source of randomness is the random arrival of new information about future dividend streams. I don't see how you propose to eliminate that. | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 20:58 | comment | added | DoubleJay | Does second-differentiability matter if time and strategy space are continuous? I know it matters if strategy space is continuous but time isn't (a la the last example), but I'm not clear on whether that case allows a very small discrete timestep to converge to the instance of a continuous game. | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 19:22 | comment | added | Greg Muller | It seems like you want more than continuous; that you want second-differentiable, with the control a player has being the ability to dictate what the acceleration of his position in strategy space is. | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 19:22 | answer | added | Greg Muller | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 16:54 | answer | added | Joel David Hamkins | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jun 4, 2010 at 15:21 | history | asked | DoubleJay | CC BY-SA 2.5 |