tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096388.post109782642856550195..comments2007-04-16T12:19:11.665+02:00malhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09350470542549879254noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096388.post-1098302665581937592004-10-20T22:04:00.000+02:002004-10-20T22:04:00.000+02:00Thought so...<br />Cool, thanks for clarifying.<br /><br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096388.post-1098162322514661862004-10-19T07:05:00.000+02:002004-10-19T07:05:00.000+02:00Value. Penalties as well as value for the participants in the alliance. Argh, it's too early in the morning for game theory.malhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09350470542549879254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096388.post-1098162247606832452004-10-19T07:04:00.000+02:002004-10-19T07:04:00.000+02:00Er, yeah you're right. Sorry. Basically, once the prisoner has determined it doesn't need to co-operate with another Southampton prisoner, it operates on the principle of naked self-interest. Thus always turns state's witness. My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.<br /><br />The point remains the same, though. Self-interest can be loaded by prior alliance, but an alliance in the face of imperfect signalling has penalties as well as costs for some of the participants.malhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09350470542549879254noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096388.post-1098134862254513642004-10-18T23:27:00.000+02:002004-10-18T23:27:00.000+02:00Havent you made an error...I see no reason for anyone to win regardless of what the other does for the choice "deny".<br /><br />From the choices you list it is obvious that they have to turn state witness. no?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com