/lit/ - Literature

>>14577211
butt

>>14577211
im very dumb thats why i read other peoples idea i have none of my own

>>14577211
I use my phone calculator for basic addition.

>>14577235
Sometimes it is very meaningful to read what other people have read on various subjects. It is, after all, the height of pride and arrogance to think that you could stumble upon some ingenious revelation without adhering to some elders who have, before you, swelled upon this same subject for a greater length of time. :3

>>14577211

We're all humanities fags (read: people with souls)

You'll want to head of to /sci/ to play with the other bugmen. Go on then. Off you go.

>being unable to do math gives you a soul

>>14577300
The subject of this thread is the measurement of the utility of all individuals throughout society, what Harsanyi and others call ‘W’.

Grow up. I don’t care if your humanities department didn’t use mathematics, academia is a horrid place these days anyway. Just consider this: if your measurement of W is negative as opposed to someone’s who is positive, do you think this has any negative effects on their exchange with others? :3

>>14577315

That depends on what kind of exchange it is. If you mean a social exchange I'd argue that it only has negative effects if the person they are having the social exchange with has a positive score. If the other person they are having the exchange with has a negative score as well I'd say it would more likely have a positive influence on the exchange because the two are more likely to view one another as equals.

Still, not really /lit/

>>14577288
i dont know if i believe what u said but the :3 is making me warm inside, thanks anon. wish my actual cat loved me.

>>14577211
How do I into maths?

>>14577330
It is /lit/ because /lit/ is the discussion of literature and I mentioned the author of literature within my thread description.

Now, what you refer to as ‘score’ doesn’t make too much sense. If there is a net positive utility exchange though, it can be assumed the two participants view each other positively. This is representable within game theory as a two person game.

It has to be remembered what you are asserting is at the LEAST equivalent to a zero sum two person exchange, which doesn’t exist. You can guarantee that a two person negative utility doesn’t exist. So from the framework of this simple logical exercise I could guarantee the world does not run on negativity.

Based on Harsanyi et al. you can indeed extrapolate the findings of game theory to social conventions. People do not associate with those who do not enjoy giving others a positive utility out of the exchange. So the association, and coalition (to use a Von Neumann term) just won’t occur. This leads to obvious disadvantages within economics for that economic unit or individual, and it means that there is indeed a huge disadvantage to a negative value of W, the social welfare function.

>>14577362
Just grind it out man.

Euclids Elements
Archimedes’ On Spheroids
Leonardo Pisano - Liber Abaci/Book of Squares
Von Neumann/Morgenstern - Theory of Games and Economic Behavior

You can learn geometrical behaviors and set theory from these books. Valuable knowledge too. Watch Khan Academy get their fucking autismal asses wrecked that I’m recommending GASP literature on a literature board.

>>14577367

Oh I see. I came to flame you but that's actually kind of interesting.

Can we have gametheory thread every week from now on? I've had enough of René Guénon.

>>14577383
I would not mind it, sir. I, too, tire of seeing the same threads reposted. Unique ideas should be posited. My favorite type of literature is creative, mathematical stuff. :3

>>14577375
Thanks for making lit worth coming to lad

>>14577383
Game theory is an utter profanisation of mathematics. You'd know if you read Guénon's The Reign of Quantity and the Signs of the Times where he retroactively demolishes and BTFOs game theory.

>>14577959
your posts are not enlightening, endearing or amusing. go away.