Page 3 of 3
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:39 pm
by Puddle
I do so enjoy a game of, "You don't know what you're talking about! No, YOU don't know what you're talking about!" In the interest of advancing this discussion, here is the wikipedia page for Nash Equilibrium:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:40 pm
by Restitution
RoganJosh wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:39 pm
Sorry, but that is not what a Nash equilibrium is. A Nash equilibrium is a situation where both players made a choice, and neither player would want to change their mind even if they were told what the other player chose.
This is incorrect. You can literally google the correct definition. Or look at wikiepdia, yeah. You've pretty clearly only learned about nash equilibriums through the prisoner's dilemma or something.
The case of a 50/50 nash equilibrium is *literally* an archetypal example of a nash equilibrium:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_pennies
Which is in the *second paragraph* of the nash equilibrium wikipedia page.
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:46 pm
by Restitution
"the unique Nash equilibrium of this game is in mixed strategies: each player chooses heads or tails with equal probability.[2] In this way, each player makes the other indifferent between choosing heads or tails, so neither player has an incentive to try another strategy. "
How is it possible for someone to be so confident and so wrong?
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:04 pm
by RoganJosh
Quoting the Matching Pennies wikipedia article:
"This game has no pure strategy Nash equilibrium since there is no pure strategy (heads or tails) that is a best response to a best response"
You are cute!
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:06 pm
by RoganJosh
Wait, are we just discussing the difference between pure strategy Nash equilibria and mixed strategy Nash equilibria!?
Oh, no! We're both pathetic!
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:40 pm
by Restitution
RoganJosh wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:06 pm
Wait, are we just discussing the difference between pure strategy Nash equilibria and mixed strategy Nash equilibria!?
Oh, no! We're both pathetic!
No, no, that's just you. I never claimed that pure strategy nash equilibriums didn't exist, you insisted that the example you gave of a coin flip wasn't a nash equilibrium at all and are backfilling your mistake as if you knew what a mixed strategy was all along.
Literally posted about how I'm cute before reading two sentences after the sentence you quoted. Pure sophistry.
Anyway, I'm done. You would look a lot better if you just admitted you made a mistake.
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:44 pm
by Restitution
RoganJosh wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:51 pm
What can I say. In 50/50 guess for the win there is no Nash equilibrium. I think we don't use the same definition of "solve."
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 8:58 pm
by RoganJosh
Restitution wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 7:40 pm
This is incorrect.
Actually, I admitted I made a mistake. In my world, "Nash equilibrium" is "pure state Nash equilibrium," and "mixed state Nash equilibrium" is called "optimal strategy."
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Fri Mar 22, 2019 10:08 pm
by Squigs44
RoganJosh wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:51 pm
Squigs44 wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:43 pm
In Nim, depending on who goes first and the starting heaps, you could build an AI that would win every single time.
Even if AI plays against AI? Both would win?
Whichever AI went first would win every time (except for unique setups where whoever went second would win every time). Probability has no part in choosing moves in a game of Nim.
Re: Artificial intelligence in 1v1 diplomacy
Posted: Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:47 am
by Pallavi1990
Thank you for your help. I'm looking for something like that