Game Theory

Good day, everyone. I'm Professor N (no, not Nash), and I'm here to present to you a case study on Game Theory. This is a 3 person game, and by nature, it is zero sum. First things first, lets understand a couple of things: (definitions courtesy wiki. too lazy to type. copy paste rules)

1. Game Theory - A branch of applied mathematics that attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others.

2. Zero Sum Game - A situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s). If the total gains of the participants are added up, and the total losses are subtracted, they will sum to zero.

Yes so now you have what you need for the moment.

Let us consider 3 participants in this game; X, Y and Z. It must be understood that X and Y are involved in a game of their own. Due to unavailability of data, I cannot tell you what the sum of their game is. It can be noted, however, that the unavailability of data can be attributed to the game under study.

X and Y had a great deal of interaction between them, independent of each one's interaction with Z, with varying degrees (not of freedom). This, by nature poses the possibility of two separate games influencing the aforementioned two separate games, making in all, 4. This implies, ceteris paribus, that the degrees (yes, of freedom) must therefore be, 3. Since that has no reference to this case, we shall abandon these said degrees of freedom, spurning them as we would spurn a rabid dog.

The existence of these separate games is of great significance. To understand, let us see the chain of events, starting, ever so obviously, from the beginning. X and Z also had a great deal of interaction between them, starting with the first time these two variables (read participants) came into contact on the same plane (Cartesian, to avoid confusion). However, since we know that the Butterfly Effect holds true in most cases, especially where it should not, certain small changes in the initial system involving X and Z caused their system to be non-robust, and hence, collapse. Although here, interestingly, what was affected was only the correlation and not the regression. Thus far, X and Z had been positively correlated. After and due to the system falling apart from the top, X and Z became negatively correlated. However, due to unavailability of data, and very honestly, fateful cockup, the regression equation never changed.

This means that apart from their negative correlation, the two mentioned variables possess covariance, thereby rendering them not completely independent of each other. Now let us let this be, and examine X and Y.

X and Y, as mentioned before, displayed characteristics of adhesion. The two variables were perfectly correlated. Again, fateful cockup and Edward Lorenz (through the butterfly effect) intervened, and their system lost credibility, though not robustness. The two variables remained suspended within the dynamics of their own cartesian plane. Interestingly and unexpectedly, Y wandered into the plane Z was on and interacted with said Z. Y and Z interacted mostly with decreasing degrees of freedom, since their plane merged and overlapped (merging and overlapping independently, of course) with the plane of X.

As is common with most assumptions, they are proved wrong. X and Y assumed their independance, but not counting on their covariance proved to be the undoing. X and Y found their balance, and their system was restored, eliminating the errors of the previous state. Utimately, X and Y became so closely correlated that their correlation went beyond perfect. The net result of this was that the system Y and Z had been in fell apart completely.

This leaves us with only two systems now, the debris of the aforementioned four. As can easily be seen, this is a zero sum game.

Now you have seen the case. IF you see a problem, give me the solution. Man I love professorial work :D

Shards of rain break down
As He walks his blistery path
His soles cracked and jagged
He stops for a drink of water

As he drinks, the water scars him
It leaves a line down his jugular
The scope of his defense leaves a mark
Ah, the blistering innocence

The glasspiece coursing thorugh veins
Mark its destination with suffering
Its movement traces an outline
A sihlouette carved out of wood

Motion if evanescent, ephemeral
The action outlives its intention
Movement embodies creation
And goes in hand with defeat

Neruda - Tonight I Can Write The Saddest Lines

Tonight I can write the saddest lines.

Write, for example,'The night is shattered
and the blue stars shiver in the distance.'

The night wind revolves in the sky and sings.

Tonight I can write the saddest lines.
I loved her, and sometimes she loved me too.

Through nights like this one I held her in my arms
I kissed her again and again under the endless sky.

She loved me sometimes, and I loved her too.
How could one not have loved her great still eyes.

Tonight I can write the saddest lines.
To think that I do not have her. To feel that I have lost her.

To hear the immense night, still more immense without her.
And the verse falls to the soul like dew to the pasture.

What does it matter that my love could not keep her.
The night is shattered and she is not with me.

This is all. In the distance someone is singing. In the distance.
My soul is not satisfied that it has lost her.

My sight searches for her as though to go to her.
My heart looks for her, and she is not with me.

The same night whitening the same trees.
We, of that time, are no longer the same.

I no longer love her, that's certain, but how I loved her.
My voice tried to find the wind to touch her hearing.

Another's. She will be another's. Like my kisses before.
Her voide. Her bright body. Her inifinite eyes.

I no longer love her, that's certain, but maybe I love her.
Love is so short, forgetting is so long.

Because through nights like this one I held her in my arms
my soul is not satisfied that it has lost her.

Though this be the last pain that she makes me suffer
and these the last verses that I write for her......(for you)
______________________________________________


If ever somebody could paint pain, this is it. Neruda, I salute you. And you....yes, you....this is for you.

Gaiman on Love

I came across this a while back, and remembered it today. I dont hate love, but am avoiding it for precisely these reasons. Bright side is, the description of love is so beautifully true. Read it I say...

"Have you ever been in love? Horrible isn't it? It makes you so vulnerable. It opens your chest and it opens up your heart and it means that someone can get inside you and mess you up. You build up all these defenses, you build up a whole suit of armor, so that nothing can hurt you, then one stupid person, no different from any other stupid person, wanders into your stupid life...You give them a piece of you. They didn't ask for it. They did something dumb one day, like kiss you or smile at you, and then your life isn't your own anymore. Love takes hostages. It gets inside you. It eats you out and leaves you crying in the darkness, so simple a phrase like 'maybe we should be just friends' turns into a glass splinter working its way into your heart. It hurts. Not just in the imagination. Not just in the mind. It's a soul-hurt, a real gets-inside-you-and-rips-you-apart pain. I hate love.”

Gaiman is the man