4 ms·
Doesn'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
by smegel 13y ago
Doesn'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.