No Confusion !
One should not try to be good to others at the cost of oneself. The strategy that is the best for one's self will always result in stable optimum state roots for a set of equation given a set of constraint. Expectations from others and their expectation are just constraints and should be dealt as 'constraints' in the real sense.
Denial should not be the first line of defense for defying logic. Accepting logic should not hurt your interest, as it is inherently paradoxical - as something that hurts you cannot be logic to you, unless your logic goes through a not gate. Also there is no universally accepted correct logic.
Some games have no equilibrium, in that case the game needs to be changed and not the strategy. Realization that a game and strategies have no equilibrium must not take more time than the time required for finding equilibrium if it existed. Interpretation of time is again subjective.
You can defy logic and be hell bent on employing emotionally biased and rationally insane strategies to a given problem. You can loop forever then, because you cannot give up the basic need of reaching a equilibrium with one’s self.
In a distributed sense the trust chain has to be trusted and authenticated completely. If morality comes in the way of logic, you should understand that your morality certificate server cannot be placed outside one’s self. Simply because an morality certificate server outside you cannot trusted. If your certificate server is within your self it won’t conflict with logic and any conflicts are solved without further conflicts and external confusion.
The plane for the searching the most optimal solutions in most complex problems is convex and the search should not be more complicated than it already is. Complicated strategies are mostly are based on complicated hypothesis, and more complicated is the hypothesis the lesser are the chances of it being correct (Occam's Razor). A strategy benefiting one's self is the simplest of them all.
-Faraz.
Denial should not be the first line of defense for defying logic. Accepting logic should not hurt your interest, as it is inherently paradoxical - as something that hurts you cannot be logic to you, unless your logic goes through a not gate. Also there is no universally accepted correct logic.
Some games have no equilibrium, in that case the game needs to be changed and not the strategy. Realization that a game and strategies have no equilibrium must not take more time than the time required for finding equilibrium if it existed. Interpretation of time is again subjective.
You can defy logic and be hell bent on employing emotionally biased and rationally insane strategies to a given problem. You can loop forever then, because you cannot give up the basic need of reaching a equilibrium with one’s self.
In a distributed sense the trust chain has to be trusted and authenticated completely. If morality comes in the way of logic, you should understand that your morality certificate server cannot be placed outside one’s self. Simply because an morality certificate server outside you cannot trusted. If your certificate server is within your self it won’t conflict with logic and any conflicts are solved without further conflicts and external confusion.
The plane for the searching the most optimal solutions in most complex problems is convex and the search should not be more complicated than it already is. Complicated strategies are mostly are based on complicated hypothesis, and more complicated is the hypothesis the lesser are the chances of it being correct (Occam's Razor). A strategy benefiting one's self is the simplest of them all.
-Faraz.
Labels: Comp Sec, Economics, Machine Learning, Nash Equilibrium, Occams Razor, Trust
posted by Faraz Ahmed Shaikh | 12:52 AM
|
0 comments
