I don't understand why it is obvious that for any games A and B, composition C has any relation to A or B.
Parrondo's Paradox
11–20 of 53 posts
Re: Parrondo's Paradox
#12This seems like such a pointless semantic flex to me... In this case has the game not become Game A + Game B ? It's just a larger game with a distinct winning strategy because the ruleset is expanded right? What's the significance?
Yeah, this seems pointless. Here's an example of the paradox:
1) Hitting both nails and screws with a hammer is a losing game.
2) Screwing both nails and screws with a screwdriver is a losing game.
Paradox alert! If you hammer the nails and screw the screws you've transformed two losing games into a winning game!
Re: Parrondo's Paradox
#13This seems like such a pointless semantic flex to me... In this case has the game not become Game A + Game B ? It's just a larger game with a distinct winning strategy because the ruleset is expanded right? What's the significance?
Sure but I want to imagine that some people are only playing Game A and others are only playing Game B, unaware of the relation between them that creates positive outcomes by sometimes losing in one game or the other.
Re: Parrondo's Paradox
#14This seems like such a pointless semantic flex to me... In this case has the game not become Game A + Game B ? It's just a larger game with a distinct winning strategy because the ruleset is expanded right? What's the significance?
Yeah, this seems pointless. Here's an example of the paradox: 1) Hitting both nails and screws with a hammer is a losing game. 2) Screwing both nails and screws with a screwdriver is a losing game. Paradox alert! If you hammer the nails and screw the screws you've transformed two losing games into a winning game!
And know imagine you didn't know you can switch the tools.
Re: Parrondo's Paradox
#15This seems like such a pointless semantic flex to me... In this case has the game not become Game A + Game B ? It's just a larger game with a distinct winning strategy because the ruleset is expanded right? What's the significance?
Only if you realize that the game could be looked at as Game + Game B
Re: Parrondo's Paradox
#16This seems like such a pointless semantic flex to me... In this case has the game not become Game A + Game B ? It's just a larger game with a distinct winning strategy because the ruleset is expanded right? What's the significance?
Indeed, there's no way this is the product of actual game theory because it is using a pathologically incompatible definition of "game" where the player is allowed to change the rules.
Re: Parrondo's Paradox
#17I don't understand why it is obvious that for any games A and B, composition C has any relation to A or B.
Agree. Perhaps it is my unfamiliarity with this field but it does not appear that composition is a meaningful operation here.
Re: Parrondo's Paradox
#18[dead]
Re: Parrondo's Paradox
#19This seems like such a pointless semantic flex to me... In this case has the game not become Game A + Game B ? It's just a larger game with a distinct winning strategy because the ruleset is expanded right? What's the significance?
I think the HN relevant use case would be looking at this from the opposite side. You've designed 2 games (or algorithms) and both result in a winning state. But when they are used alternately, they lead to worse outcomes. A made up, possibly bad example that's using similar 'rules':
Start with: 1 large fixed size data structure and 1 cache Algorithm A: Checks as it is iterating whether the cache is full. If not, it generates the cache data (SLOW) but can then iterate over the entire data structure quickly. First time it does this is a loss, but 2nd pass through the data structure leads to an overall win. Algorithm B: Prefers an empty cache. If cache is full it will delete it. It can iterate over the entire data structure fairly quickly. Each time is considered a win.
Now you have a program with many different features and everyone knows that it doesn't really matter if you use Algorithm A or B because they are both programmed to work safely together and if you test a feature using one of the algorithms it will be fast either way, so it's left up to personal preference. The fun begins when the full program starts alternating from algorithm A to B.
Re: Parrondo's Paradox
#20I don’t really understand how this is a paradox, but it’s definitely surprising and non intuitive.
It seems like if you have 2 games A and B, the second you start playing them together you’ve effectively created a new game C, which is a game of A and B combined.