Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo. Show me where you cited a source that contradicts what I am saying. Also show the contradiction. I am just wasting my time with you because you don't even know the difference between a Theory and a branch of mathematics, or a mathematical theory and a possible application of the theory, or even the difference between the inputs to an equation being variable and the equation itself being variable.
Again: you are claiming that the source I cited is in error?
Originally posted by twhiteheadSigh. Are you this obstinate in your day-to-day dealings, or is such silliness reserved for the anonymity of lost debates? Once again: on page two of this thread, fourth post from the bottom of page two of this thread, I cited a source which encapsulates the essence of game theory--- the same topic that was introduced into the conversation by you.
No. Show me where you cited a source that contradicts what I am saying. Also show the contradiction. I am just wasting my time with you because you don't even know the difference between a Theory and a branch of mathematics, or a mathematical theory and a possible application of the theory, or even the difference between the inputs to an equation being variable and the equation itself being variable.
In that citation, I emboldened the elements of game theory that I am here (again) declaring as subjective, i.e., a matter of perspective and/or dependent upon shifting standards. It is precisely these elements which prohibit game theory from being anything but subjective, regardless of the remaining objective tools employed. And that's just the first obstacle.
Another equally difficult obstacle is the confusion you seem to be having in distinguishing between morality and equilibrium... but that's another discussion altogether.