> Then presumably their strategy would also involve a confirmation message, so I would randomly choose my second message to either be "I agree with your strateg

> Then presumably their strategy would also involve a confirmation message, so I would randomly choose my second message to either be "I agree with your strategy" or "I disagree" and then re-propose my strategy. It's all about being random in your choices. What if their choice of (meta-)strategy for agreeing on the strategy is different? Unless you can prove that only a single winning strategy exists (which every perfect logician will arrive at), you can't really assume that they will cooperate with whatever strategy or (meta-)*strategy you communicate. Sure, most humans will be on the same page as you very quickly as you go up meta-levels, but if you rely on human nature you also quickly get fallibility (see the host of bad answers in this thread) and not "perfect logicians". > But if the turn counter has to be kept independently, then we need more information Every time you have the opportunity to send a message, a new round begins (for both participants). Can you explain how this needs "more information"?