2 ms·

I don't want to comment of philosophy part, but isn't math part flawed? The problem states that everyone shares dollar on the clock tick - that means the node

I don't want to comment of philosophy part, but isn't math part flawed? The problem states that everyone shares dollar on the clock tick - that means the node of the game graph has out-degree of smth like 99^100, not 100? (or maybe ~comb(199,100) with bizarre distribution if you dislike multi-edges) And the whole idea of "undirected graphs have easy stationary distribution, so our almost-stationary one has almost-that" isn't grounded in anything but a hunch... (and having >30% of "bad" nodes doesn't seem all that much "almost" to me)

dreghgh 1y ago
Yes you are completely right. All the analysis is done for a game where one randomly chosen person with money gives one other randomly chosen person one dollar at each time step. Some of the conclusions might be similar since random processes often have a certain regularity where exact details don't matter. But basically every formula in the article is completely incorrect.