Originally posted by twhitehead
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.
Sigh. 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.
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.
The Moral Instinct
30 Jan '08 20:28
Back to Top