12 ms·
It's not about some players performing better than others. It's about the game maybe having a better outcome (for everyone) in one case than the other. Maybe
by domdip 13y ago
It's not about some players performing better than others.
It's about the game maybe having a better outcome (for everyone) in one case than the other. Maybe it's not surprising that 'extra' information improves the game. But a point of this article (IMO) was to formally show that you could link the notion of 'extra' in physics to 'better' in game theory.
I'm not arguing that this is profound, but it's not completely trivial either.
- smegel 13y agoDoesn't "link" imply some common cause or connection? Saying you can use A to improve B isn't really what I would describe as a link. Why couldn't it have been titled "quantum non-locality could change game theory equilibrium"...or would it have not been sensational enough?
- domdip 13y agoYeah "link" is probably too strong because it seems to be in one direction. They apply the informational contexts of physics to a game-theoretic model. Then they show that some stuff is implied in the latter. They also show that a payoff strategy space has the same form as a test for a Bell inequality. That's the hyped 'link' but IMO it's really weak and not newsworthy in itself. Care about this paper if you care about thinking about games in the context of assumptions about quantum information. They've arguably come up with a reasonably clean model for that and contradicted a prior result in the process. If you don't care about that research space then you probably don't want to spend too much time pondering the philosophy of this.