Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The pursuer-fugitive game is not strictly competitive when the utility functions reflect the players' actual preferences about outcomes

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Von Neumann's original definition of strictly competitive games requires only that one player's gain in *ordinal* ranking entails the other's loss, not cardinal symmetry.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If we restrict the outcome space to {capture, escape}, the pursuer-fugitive game satisfies this ordinal zero-sum condition regardless of how intermediate outcomes are ranked.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The SEP argument conflates the richer preference structure of the *extended* game with the defining structure of the *core* competitive interaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Harsanyi's utility aggregation framework holds that interpersonal utility comparisons can be normalized so that any two-player game with opposed interests is representable as zero-sum under an appropriate cardinal rescaling.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If utility functions can always be affinely transformed to yield strict competition without loss of strategic content, then the claim that 'actual preferences' break strict competitiveness is an artifact of the chosen representation, not a deep feature of the game.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A strictly competitive game requires that every gain in expected utility by one player represents a precisely symmetrical loss by the other
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The pursuer ranks outcomes as: capturing the fugitive herself > fugitive dies by other means > fugitive escapes
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The fugitive ranks outcomes as: escape > death by gunshot > death by rockfall or snakebite
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.