Test your wits

I have studied Game Theory for my mathematics degree, and Modulous is right. Whatever option your opponent chooses you are better off if you choose to defect. It is only in the iterated case, when the rewards of future cooperation outweigh the short-term gain of defection that cooperation becomes the better option in mathematical (or economic) terms.Perhaps you are thinking of psychologists or sociologists ? Mathematics assumes no link between your choice and your opponents, while your argument assumes that your opponent will choose the same as you.

quote:

---

Assuming an individual game. There is another possible game to play.

---

Exactly as I stated: Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Indeed, but I am pointing out that there is even a third, non-iterative game to play. I don't think I was thinking of the same game.

---

Likely you were thinking of what amounts to a different game (in mathematical terms) from the Prisoner's Dilemma. But what's the point of bringing it up ?The iterative version is interesting because it keeps the same payoff matrix. A game using a different matrix would just be a different game. It may or may not be interesting in its own right but any relationship to the Prisoner's Dilemma is likely to be in terms other than the strictly mathematical.

quote:

---

No, I was thinking of the Prisoner's Dilemma as it has always been presented to me: As an exercise in showing how individual strategies do not lead to grand strategies.

---

No, that doesn't seem to be the issue.

quote:

---

Indeed. Where did I say I changed the payoff matrix?

---

Quite explicitly in Message 39Reducing time "across the board" would produce a quite different payoff matrix since the time served by your opponent would be a loss to you, as well as him.