Re: Game Theory and its Relevance to Cypherpunks

[David Sternlight <david@sternlight.com>]

At 2:19 AM -0700 7/21/96, Arun Mehta wrote:
>At 21:57 20/07/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote:
>>
>>Fortunately, the goal of MAD was to
>>not have to be used, and it appears now to have worked quite well (albeit
>>at high cost).
>
>My problem with applying game theory to complex situations like the
>competition between powerful nations is that it is too simplistic. IANAE,
>of course, though I have done some control theory, and know how
>complex the modelling of any system becomes if it contains non-linearities,
>delays, etc. In a closed-loop system, i.e. with feedback, trying to predict
>behaviour without the foggiest notion of how to quantify the impact of
>Kennedy's grandstanding on the Kruschev mind (for instance) is questionable.

Some findings of game theory are really just formulations of common sense,
or proofs of things intuitively suspected, and are both valid and useful.
Some have worked their way into mainstream economics. I think, for example,
of the "Prisoners' Dilemma".

In fact it is exactly that result that is at the core of MAD. It only works
in advance if both sides know the payoff matrix, which is why many of the
"incomprehensible" leaks of our capabilities took place and why we took
great pains (as did the Sovs--can you say "Markov"? or "Kolmogorov"?) to do
demos of our capabilities that they could easily observe.

David