Talk:Prisoner's dilemma: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:52, 17 June 2023 editA. Randomdude0000 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users15,041 editsm formatting← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:38, 23 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,294,326 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Prisoner's dilemma/Archive 5) (bot
(31 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talkheader~~\|archive_age=1\|archive_units=year~~}}		{{Talkheader}}
	{{Vital article\|class=C\|topic=Mathematics\|level=5}}
	{{ArticleHistory		{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=RBP		\|action1=RBP
Line 17:		Line 16:
	\|currentstatus=FFA		\|currentstatus=FFA
	}}		}}
	{{WikiProject banner shell\|1=		{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|listas=Prisoner's dilemma\|1=
	{{~~WP1.0\|class=B~~\|importance=~~Low\|v0.7=pass\|category=Math\|small=yes~~}}		{{WikiProject Game theory\|importance=Top}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Game theory\|class=C~~\|importance=~~Top\|listas=Prisoner's dilemma~~}}		{{WikiProject Mathematics\|importance=high}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Economics\|importance=High\|needs-infobox=no}}
	{{maths rating\|class=C\|frequentlyviewed=yes\|importance=high\|field=foundations\|listas=Prisoner's dilemma}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Economics\|class=C~~\|importance=High\|~~listas~~=~~Prisoner's dilemma~~\|needs-~~infobox~~=no}}		{{WikiProject Computer science\|importance=High\|needs-infobox=no\|needs-image=no\|computing=no}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Computer science\|class=C~~\|importance=High~~\|listas=Prisoner's dilemma~~\|needs-~~infobox=no\|needs-image=no\|computing~~=no}}		{{WikiProject Environment\|importance=High\|needs-photo=no}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Environment\|class=C~~\|importance=~~High\|listas=Prisoner's dilemma~~\|needs-~~photo~~=no}}		{{WikiProject Sociology\|importance=Mid\|needs-infobox=no}}
			{{WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities}}
⚫	{{WikiProject ~~Sociology\|class=C~~\|importance=~~Mid\|listas=Prisoner's dilemma~~\|needs-infobox=no}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Correction~~ ~~and Detention Facilities~~\|~~class~~=C\|~~listas~~=~~Prisoner's dilemma~~}}		{{WikiProject Psychology \|importance=Mid \|needs-infobox=no}}
	{{WikiProject Psychology \|class=C \|importance=Mid \|listas=Prisoner's dilemma \|needs-infobox=no}}

	}}		}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 45:		Line 42:
	\|small=yes}}		\|small=yes}}

			== what? ==
	==Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment==

	] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-09-06">6 September 2020</span> and <span class="mw-formatted-date" title="2020-12-06">6 December 2020</span>. Further details are available ]. Student editor(s): ].
			''A purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent for purely self-interested reasons first.''

			Why is that sentence in the "Nice" section? How is a purely selfish strategy "nice?" ] (]) 04:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

			:I also don't understand the logic of that sentence. How is a ''purely'' selfish strategy not purely selfish? ] (]) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
			::I didn't find many mentions of "purely selfish" in decent sources after a quick search, although I think it means does not consider the other party at all, that is, it always chooses the best outcome--defect. I am changing this to "This strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent for purely self-interested reasons first" for now. ] (]) 02:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
			:Yeah, this section is a bit convoluted. "Nice" simply means the algorithm will not defect first, compared to algorithms which will try to defect. ] (]) 01:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

			== Christmas truce in "See also" ==

			No inline citation is given for why the ] is mentioned at ] of this article, and mentioning it in this article seems inappropriate - can anyone explain? As I understand it, the Christmas truce was a ] and therefore should instead be mentioned in that article:

			- if both sides cooperate, everybody involved gets to live that day and enjoy the truce;

			- if both sides betray, then the war continues as usual with some casualties being expected;
	{{small\|Above undated message substituted from ] by ] (]) 07:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)}}
	== Personal comment ==

			- if one side cooperates with the other betraying, then the cooperating side suffers massive casualties due to an ill-fated attempt to cross ], while the betraying side can shoot the enemy with impunity, but does not enjoy a truce that day. ] (]) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
	The one thing I don't understand about this dilemma is if Person A decides to snitch on Person B, then even if B wanted to keep his mouth shut he'll change his mind and snitch on A. In the long run it's far more advantageous for both of them to cooperate. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)</small>
	-------------------------------------
	Please note that this talk page is normally for discussion about probleme from the article, not discussion on the subject

			As it turns out, the mentioning of the Christmas truce was introduced in with no reason given. ] (]) 19:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
	That's the point effectively. But the one who cooperate will hope the other one does the same (for example when a authoritarian governement like the ]steps-in, some might cooperate and denounce others in hope state will colaborate and leave them alone.
	--] (]) 17:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
	:A huge part of 'the prisoner's dilemma' is that the two actors cannot communicate with each other (or know each other's intention/action), and have no way to get back at each other afterwards. ] (]) 01:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

			== The grammar is wrong. ==
	== Golden Balls gameshow as a real life example? ==
	There is a somewhat reported on instance of the game show Golden Balls presenting its contestants with a prisoner's dilemma (centered around prize money) and one contestant subverting the intended conflict. One article touches upon the event here
	<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)</span>

			] redirects to ]. The plural possessive, however, is the correct form (regardless of how many times the mistake has been repeated in the past) and the singular possessive is wrong.
	== Dubious criticism of Hofstadter's briefcase game ==

			While there's only one dilemma (it's the same dilemma), it ''must'' be faced by multiple prisoners, otherwise the entire thought experiment is meaningless. Therefore multiple prisoners face the dilemma in question. It's the prisoners' dilemma, not any one prisoner's dilemma.
	After describing Hofstadter's briefcase version of PD, the article contains this sentence: "However, in this case both players cooperating and both players defecting actually give the same result, assuming no gains from trade exist, so chances of mutual cooperation, even in repeated games, are few." That seems like a strange way to interpret the case, and hardly a criticism of it. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume, since they're trading at all, that player A has a utility-function according to which diamonds & money > diamonds > money > nothing, and player B has a utility function according to which diamonds & money > money > diamonds > nothing? Does this criticism show up anywhere in a reliable source?] (]) 14:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
	:I agree this is dubious. You could call this the Ebayer's dilemma. the theory is that the two attach different values to the goods being sold, and the price agreed is higher than the seller's value, and lower than the buyer's value, and as such both parties think they have made a good deal by trading. It would not be rational to sell a good for a value equal to or less than the value you ascribe to it; conversely it would not be rational to buy it for a value equal to or more than you think it's actually worth. Cash naturally has its face value for either side. Described . By going through with the trade, both sides realise a value: the seller sells the item for more than she thinks it is worth; the buyer buys it for less than he is ultimately prepared to pay. Therefore any arms' length commercial transaction between rational counterparties is a positive sum game; a mutual defection is a zero-sum game (though there will be nominal frictional costs from having wasted time arriving at the bargain, so defecting will actually be negligibly a negative sum game). I have deleted the criticism, which I suspect is also OR. ] (]) 17:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

			This grammatical atrocity must be ferreted out and stopped anywhere it can, and redirecting from the correct grammar to the wrong grammar is enabling the reign of the kingdom of the Doofuses.
	== External links modified ==

			Next step: figuring out how to make Chrome stop underlining the correct form.
	Hello fellow Wikipedians,
			] (]) 03:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

			:Hi, What you are commenting is not a grammar issue, it is just a preference for naming the game. Grammatically both expressions are correct. We could also argue that the dilemma is not really about prisoners but about criminals or defendants, and argue in favor of changing the name of the game accordingly. Now, i personally prefer singular, as it puts emphasis on the point of view of one (arbitrary) criminal/defendant/prisoner, and the concept of Nash equilibrium also puts emphasis on the issue with (isolated/distributed) individual decisions. I checked the corresponding wiki page in about 10 other languages and singular is used in all. ] (]) 06:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
	I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512175243/http://www.econ.nagoya-cu.ac.jp/~yhamagu/ultimatum.pdf to http://www.econ.nagoya-cu.ac.jp/~yhamagu/ultimatum.pdf

			== Plus/minus and payoff/cost ==
	When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

			I suspect that many may be puzzled comparing the "payoff" matrix in the ], displaying years in prison as payoffs, and the one in the ], displaying, as expected, a more desirable payoff with a greater value than a less desirable one.
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
			We ask for instance in a general prisoner's dilemma that <math>R>P</math>, where ''R'' is the payoff for cooperating=staying silent, and ''P'' that for defecting=testifying; this is inconsistent with payoffs being years in prison. The matrix displaying years in prison should rather be called "cost matrix", or be qualified with some other negative word like "punishment/penalty/sentence/...", and then the page should have a word of explanation to relate payoffs and costs. Alternatively we can display negatives of years in prison, and keep calling it "payoff matrix": this is consistent with the definition of a general prisoner's dilemma. ] (]) 05:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

			== Moral philosophy ==
	Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
			I was reading today about the applications of prisoner's dilemma in moral philosophy, and noticed that there is no section about it on this page!
			I just added a new section, along with some opinions. Feel free to expand and discuss

			== I still can't reconcile these 2 statements in the current article ==
	== Real-Life Example: An Individual's Behaviour towards the Environment ==

			I still can't reconcile these 2 statements in the current article:
	The section "In environmental studies" mentions only the implications of the PD in state politics.
	However, the behaviour of individuals regarding protecting the environment is another example of the PD. That should be mentioned, too. For example: Why should I not litter/save energy/...., if everybody else does?
	] (]) 11:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

			"For cooperation to emerge between rational players, the number of rounds must be unknown or infinite.
	"If the game is played exactly N times and both players know this, then it is optimal to defect in all rounds. The only possible Nash equilibrium is to always defect. The proof is inductive: one might as well defect on the last turn, since the opponent will not have a chance to later retaliate. Therefore, both will defect on the last turn. Thus, the player might as well defect on the second-to-last turn, since the opponent will defect on the last no matter what is done, and so on. The same applies if the game length is unknown but has a known upper limit."
	This paragraph appears to be incorrect. It is not optimal to defect in all rounds just because the game is played in N rounds and both players know this. The argument appears to be fallacious. ] (]) 17:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

			"Another aspect of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is that this tacit agreement between players has always been established successfully even when the number of iterations is made public to both sides."
	The above paragraph is the standard argument for finitely repeated prisoner's dilemma. It is not fallacious. The point is with backward induction, there is no way that one can design a retaliating strategy if the other player decides not to cooperate. (Consider just repeat the game twice, N is not necessarily a large number.) What you had in mind resembles more like the case of infinitely repeated prisoner's dilemma, in which case cooperation can become an equilibrium. --] (]) 19:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

			<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> ] (]) 01:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
	== Where does "Outcome D" arise from? ==

			:I think the idea is that when real people play repeated rounds they do not follow the rational / dominant strategy, and co-operation still emerges. I can believe this is true, but it would probably be better supported by a reference. ] (]) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
	Outcome D: If A and B both betray the other, they will share the sentence and serve 5 years

			::I can find references in which co-operation emerges in a finite game (I'll leave this reference here as an example<ref>{{cite journal \|last1=Cooper \|first1=Russell \|last2=DeJong \|first2=Douglas V. \|last3=Forsythe \|first3=Robert \|last4=Ross \|first4=Thomas W. \|title=Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games \|journal=Games and Economic Behavior \|date=1996 \|volume=12 \|issue=2 \|pages=187-218 \|doi=10.1006/game.1996.0013}}</ref>) but the word ''always'' needs some justification. I'm tempted to rephrase without the ''always'' but equally good if there is a citation to support it. ] (]) 08:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
	I am failing to see where outcome D comes from? Is it implied in the text?

	Premise:

			{{Reflist-talk}}<!-- Template:Reflist-talk creates a section-level reference list box. Please add comments and references for this section's discussion above this template. When a new discussion begins, the new section will be added below this template. Add a new {{Reflist-talk}} at the end of that section if needed. -->
	William Poundstone described the game in his 1993 book Prisoner's Dilemma:

			== Suppose a prisoner testified but perjured their testimony with false extraneous details. ==
	Two members of a criminal gang, A and B, are arrested and imprisoned. Each prisoner is in solitary confinement with no means of communication with their partner. The principal charge would lead to a sentence of ten years in prison; however, the police do not have the evidence for a conviction. They plan to sentence both to two years in prison on a lesser charge but offer each prisoner a Faustian bargain: If one of them confesses to the crime of the principal charge, betraying the other, they will be pardoned and free to leave while the other must serve the entirety of the sentence instead of just two years for the lesser charge.

			Just saying. Hope no policy has been broken by my use of this. ] (]) 17:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Lacks reference ==

			The following paragraph lacks reference.

			"In contrast to the one-time prisoner's dilemma game, the optimal strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma depends upon the strategies of likely opponents, and how they will react to defections and cooperation. For example, if a population consists entirely of players who always defect, except for one who follows the tit-for-tat strategy, that person is at a slight disadvantage because of the loss on the first turn. In such a population, the optimal strategy is to defect every time. More generally, given a population with a certain percentage of always-defectors with the rest being tit-for-tat players, the optimal strategy depends on the percentage and number of iterations played." ] (]) 02:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
	] (]) 12:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:38, 23 November 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Prisoner's dilemma article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months

Prisoner's dilemma is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 16, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
April 16, 2008	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

This

level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Game theory Top‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Misplaced Pages's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics High‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
High	This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale.

Economics High‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer science High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Mid‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities

Psychology Mid‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

"New Tack Wins Prisoner's Dilemma". Wired Magazine. October 13, 2004.

what?

A purely selfish strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent for purely self-interested reasons first.

Why is that sentence in the "Nice" section? How is a purely selfish strategy "nice?" 107.77.195.33 (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I also don't understand the logic of that sentence. How is a purely selfish strategy not purely selfish? 107.77.195.33 (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't find many mentions of "purely selfish" in decent sources after a quick search, although I think it means does not consider the other party at all, that is, it always chooses the best outcome--defect. I am changing this to "This strategy will not "cheat" on its opponent for purely self-interested reasons first" for now. Winston (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this section is a bit convoluted. "Nice" simply means the algorithm will not defect first, compared to algorithms which will try to defect. Winston (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Christmas truce in "See also"

No inline citation is given for why the Christmas truce is mentioned at the bottom of this article, and mentioning it in this article seems inappropriate - can anyone explain? As I understand it, the Christmas truce was a stag hunt and therefore should instead be mentioned in that article:

- if both sides cooperate, everybody involved gets to live that day and enjoy the truce;

- if both sides betray, then the war continues as usual with some casualties being expected;

- if one side cooperates with the other betraying, then the cooperating side suffers massive casualties due to an ill-fated attempt to cross no man's land, while the betraying side can shoot the enemy with impunity, but does not enjoy a truce that day. TheDestroyer111 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

As it turns out, the mentioning of the Christmas truce was introduced in a June 2010 edit with no reason given. TheDestroyer111 (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The grammar is wrong.

The Prisoners' Dilemma redirects to The Prisoner's Dilemma. The plural possessive, however, is the correct form (regardless of how many times the mistake has been repeated in the past) and the singular possessive is wrong.

While there's only one dilemma (it's the same dilemma), it must be faced by multiple prisoners, otherwise the entire thought experiment is meaningless. Therefore multiple prisoners face the dilemma in question. It's the prisoners' dilemma, not any one prisoner's dilemma.

This grammatical atrocity must be ferreted out and stopped anywhere it can, and redirecting from the correct grammar to the wrong grammar is enabling the reign of the kingdom of the Doofuses.

Next step: figuring out how to make Chrome stop underlining the correct form. 2601:1C2:5000:8CC7:F5EF:AC6C:C8:5638 (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi, What you are commenting is not a grammar issue, it is just a preference for naming the game. Grammatically both expressions are correct. We could also argue that the dilemma is not really about prisoners but about criminals or defendants, and argue in favor of changing the name of the game accordingly. Now, i personally prefer singular, as it puts emphasis on the point of view of one (arbitrary) criminal/defendant/prisoner, and the concept of Nash equilibrium also puts emphasis on the issue with (isolated/distributed) individual decisions. I checked the corresponding wiki page in about 10 other languages and singular is used in all. 37.67.33.80 (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Plus/minus and payoff/cost

I suspect that many may be puzzled comparing the "payoff" matrix in the Prisoner's dilemma#Premise, displaying years in prison as payoffs, and the one in the Prisoner's dilemma#Generalized form, displaying, as expected, a more desirable payoff with a greater value than a less desirable one. We ask for instance in a general prisoner's dilemma that $R>P$ , where R is the payoff for cooperating=staying silent, and P that for defecting=testifying; this is inconsistent with payoffs being years in prison. The matrix displaying years in prison should rather be called "cost matrix", or be qualified with some other negative word like "punishment/penalty/sentence/...", and then the page should have a word of explanation to relate payoffs and costs. Alternatively we can display negatives of years in prison, and keep calling it "payoff matrix": this is consistent with the definition of a general prisoner's dilemma. 37.67.33.80 (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Moral philosophy

I was reading today about the applications of prisoner's dilemma in moral philosophy, and noticed that there is no section about it on this page! I just added a new section, along with some opinions. Feel free to expand and discuss

I still can't reconcile these 2 statements in the current article

I still can't reconcile these 2 statements in the current article:

"For cooperation to emerge between rational players, the number of rounds must be unknown or infinite.

"Another aspect of the iterated prisoner's dilemma is that this tacit agreement between players has always been established successfully even when the number of iterations is made public to both sides."

~~~~ Mathiastck (talk) 01:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the idea is that when real people play repeated rounds they do not follow the rational / dominant strategy, and co-operation still emerges. I can believe this is true, but it would probably be better supported by a reference. Mgp28 (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I can find references in which co-operation emerges in a finite game (I'll leave this reference here as an example) but the word always needs some justification. I'm tempted to rephrase without the always but equally good if there is a citation to support it. Mgp28 (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Cooper, Russell; DeJong, Douglas V.; Forsythe, Robert; Ross, Thomas W. (1996). "Cooperation without Reputation: Experimental Evidence from Prisoner's Dilemma Games". Games and Economic Behavior. 12 (2): 187–218. doi:10.1006/game.1996.0013.

Suppose a prisoner testified but perjured their testimony with false extraneous details.

Just saying. Hope no policy has been broken by my use of this. Tathagata1st (talk) 17:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Lacks reference

The following paragraph lacks reference.

"In contrast to the one-time prisoner's dilemma game, the optimal strategy in the iterated prisoner's dilemma depends upon the strategies of likely opponents, and how they will react to defections and cooperation. For example, if a population consists entirely of players who always defect, except for one who follows the tit-for-tat strategy, that person is at a slight disadvantage because of the loss on the first turn. In such a population, the optimal strategy is to defect every time. More generally, given a population with a certain percentage of always-defectors with the rest being tit-for-tat players, the optimal strategy depends on the percentage and number of iterations played." 202.92.130.118 (talk) 02:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: