1. I pity the fool!
    Joined
    22 Jan '05
    Moves
    22874
    27 Jan '09 22:04
    Could human behavior be modelled mathematically?
  2. Joined
    24 Dec '07
    Moves
    13278
    27 Jan '09 22:10
    Maybe 10% of the time, no more though for sure
  3. Standard memberzozozozo
    Thread Killing Chimp
    In your retina!:D
    Joined
    09 May '05
    Moves
    42859
    27 Jan '09 22:19
    Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
    Could human behavior be modelled mathematically?
    every human is different and will behave in a different way, or do i miss the point?
  4. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    27 Jan '09 22:221 edit
    Let P be a (strict) preference relation over a given set X. A preference relation is a binary relation (i.e. it relates two elements of a given set) that has the properties of asymmetry and negative transitivity.

    More specifically, asymmetry means that if x strictly preferred to y (from here on xPy) then y is not preferred to x (from here on x~Py).

    Negative transitivity means that if x~Py & y~Pz => x~Pz. Translating that means that if x not preferred to y and y not preferred to z, then x is not preferred to z.

    These sound like reasonable axioms, don't you think?

    First homework, prove that the properties of asymmetry and negative transitivity over strict preferences imply completeness and transitivity of the weak preferences. Note: weak preference of x over y just means that x is strictly preferred or indifferent to y.

    I'll continue as soon as someone proves this. The next step will be to prove that there is a unique (up to affine transformations) function u for which xPy => u(x) > u(y), for all pairs (x,y) in X.
  5. Joined
    03 Jan '09
    Moves
    2102
    27 Jan '09 22:331 edit
    this sounds a lot like microeconomics (consumer preferences).

    Given people act as rational beings and strive to achieve maximum utility I'd say that human behavior could indeed be modelled mathematically. It would just take a LOT of variables 😀.

    The only human behaviour that can not be modelled mathematically is irrational behaviour.
  6. Joined
    24 Dec '07
    Moves
    13278
    27 Jan '09 22:35
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Let P be a (strict) preference relation over a given set X. A preference relation is a binary relation (i.e. it relates two elements of a given set) that has the properties of asymmetry and negative transitivity.

    More specifically, asymmetry means that if x strictly preferred to y (from here on xPy) then y is not preferred to x (from here on x~Py).

    Ne ...[text shortened]... to affine transformations) function u for which xPy => u(x) > u(y), for all pairs (x,y) in X.
    So 10% right! This is easy
  7. Joined
    24 Dec '07
    Moves
    13278
    27 Jan '09 22:594 edits
    The only human behaviour that can not be modelled mathematically is irrational behaviour.[/b]
    Tautology, come on please
  8. cavanaugh park
    Joined
    27 Feb '05
    Moves
    50881
    27 Jan '09 23:05
    Originally posted by Tyrannosauruschex
    Could human behavior be modelled mathematically?
    there is a theory for your question, i forget it, but i remember thinking that it was a persuasive arguement, much stronger than i would have thought
  9. Joined
    03 Jan '09
    Moves
    2102
    27 Jan '09 23:07
    Our behaviour is dependent on a 'cost' (i.e. time, money, opportunity cost etc.). People try to minimize this cost. It's rational to minimize this cost.
  10. Joined
    03 Jan '09
    Moves
    2102
    27 Jan '09 23:11
    Of course this is all under the assumption of perfect information, which we do not have! So maybe in the future when communication is even more efficient!
  11. Joined
    24 Dec '07
    Moves
    13278
    27 Jan '09 23:132 edits
    Originally posted by aethsilgne
    Our behaviour is dependent on a 'cost' (i.e. time, money, opportunity cost etc.). People try to minimize this cost. It's rational to minimize this cost.
    Why bother
  12. Joined
    03 Jan '09
    Moves
    2102
    27 Jan '09 23:17
    Let me rephrase, minimal costs maximum utility. Me being on this website now gives me more utility than for eg. sleeping.
    Taking bets may give you more utility than the opportunity cost for the given sum of money. Say you gain two utils of betting 1$ and only 1 util of saving that 1$ on the bank than you've acted rationally given your set of consumer preferences imo.
  13. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    27 Jan '09 23:18
    I guess nobody wants to learn here.
  14. Joined
    03 Jan '09
    Moves
    2102
    27 Jan '09 23:19
    🙁
  15. Joined
    24 Dec '07
    Moves
    13278
    27 Jan '09 23:24
    Originally posted by aethsilgne
    Let me rephrase, minimal costs maximum utility. Me being on this website now gives me more utility than for eg. sleeping.
    Taking bets may give you more utility than the opportunity cost for the given sum of money. Say you gain two utils of betting 1$ and only 1 util of saving that 1$ on the bank than you've acted rationally given your set of consumer preferences imo.
    Have a look at Game Theory bud, it's very interesting and while it doesn't answer your questions it shows a train of thought.

    I don't understand where your contribution talks of betting and saving, and the payoffs for that behaviour. They are the same thing just dressed up nicely in 1 respect as opposed to the other
Back to Top