Open stevekochscience opened 11 years ago
Importantly, though, I got same answer for Eq 3 and 4
I struggle with this too. Can you try to rework it and we can just choose the best options?
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Steve Koch notifications@github.comwrote:
I double checked Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 now that I understood the game. Neither one is complicated, of course, but wondering about style: IF someone wanted to read the relations without looking at the graphs. I don't think this is a big deal, since the graphs show the important information. As an example, I first came up with this for EQ 3:
[image: img_20131021_092330]https://f.cloud.github.com/assets/841583/1373637/e6dd39d8-3a64-11e3-821c-19740120d65e.JPG
I don't have a strong opinion. The alternative came when I wrote out the simple sum. It's easier to see the behavior as mu gets large. But has a stranger factor like (FD -1).
Thoughts?
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/olendorf/gametheoryopenscience/issues/10 .
I think the Fd-1 is wrong. Fd is the frequency of defectors. With two strategies (ie. D and C) then 1-Fd = Fc ( the frequency of cooperators). With three (D, C and TFT) we have to keep track of two frequencies 1 - Fd - Ftft = Fc. There is an error somewhere I"m sure. Did I screw it up? If so, we need to check the simulation code.
We need to verify the equations, verify the simulation code then close yes? I can do this.
I double checked Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 now that I understood the game. Neither one is complicated, of course, but wondering about style: IF someone wanted to read the relations without looking at the graphs. I don't think this is a big deal, since the graphs show the important information. As an example, I first came up with this for EQ 3:
I don't have a strong opinion. The alternative came when I wrote out the simple sum. It's easier to see the behavior as mu gets large. But has a stranger factor like (FD -1).
Thoughts?