Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hey yall, I got a math / economics question. Little Help?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Hey Folks,
I have been obsessing over a thought the past couple months and thought, Well I have no idea, ask the people.
Yall tend to know a lot more then I do. So here's the issue,

It has to deal with the concept of game theory and specifically, the work's of John Nash and his equillibrium theories. The issue I'm having is that in considering a game of infinite number of players, and all individuals are working for the best interests of the individual and the collective group, That the best overall result would occur.

That got me thinking, if we set a goal that meets those requirements,(named above), could we achieve the best result.

So how about Enviromental equilibrium? As in we don't take more then the earth can produce in a year.


Everyone benefits as an individual and the collective as both achieve long term sustainability. Competition within society towards achieving those would still be beneficial, and perhaps even could arguably accelerate the process of achieving said goal.

Is that almost mathematically verifiable? Cause I"m math dumb, so I'm curious is that something we already understand about economics?

Let me know, what ya think, does that even make sense? I honestly don't know! Maybe we should do that,maybe that's mathamatically verifyable. Little Help?




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Welcome to ATS.... It sounds interesting, in a regular forum. Hope to see ya in them!



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Thank you, so you think I might find some insight on one of the regular forums, anyone know where I might find the best insight? Or is there a better forum you could suggest? Thanks again.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
There is no such thing as working for the best interests of the individual AND the collective group, aren't they mutually exclusive?

If you have an infinite number of people all working for the best interests of the individual, then you will get an infinite number of different results.

If you have an infinite number of people all working for the best interests of the collective result, then it won't necessarily be the best possible answer, it will end up working towards the answer that gets the most votes, which isn't always necessarily the correct one or even the best one.

edit on 4-8-2012 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


Yup, wasn't it Spock that said " The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Couldn't have said it better myself. Having said that though, if the OP plans to work within the preexisting system, there is no way to do what he hopes to do. Our entire system is dependant on dependancy and scarcity. If you want sustainability, guess what? System's gotta go. I am not advocating anarchy or anything like that, but it's the sad truth.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by davesmart
 
Hold on a second that's funny you mean your in the uk having beers. Watching. The olympics, checking out ats?

I'm in Canada doing the exact same it's nice to see we ain't that different then our cousins across the ocean. We just have better beer
edit on 5-8-2012 by burdman30ott6 because: Do NOT discuss drugs on ATS



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Scamy1
 


It's the law of returns. If I throw trash in your yard, you can come beat me up. This makes two negatives. If you decide to throw the trash away instead, you have cancelled my negative. The best of all is to create more positive. If you throw your trash away, then come clean my yard, you have created more positive than the negative I created. I am then likely to never throw trash in anyone's yard again out of honor for the kindness on your part.

The Bible calls negative acts sin. This is based on a person's will to receive, give or take.

If a person has the will to receive, he can also give what is received. We all have desire, but we don't all give back. When we only have the will to receive and not give, we are really only expressing the will to take. Our current society is locked into the pholosophy of Any Rand and Objectivism. This is the will to take. What is taken will then trickle down to others. There is a problem in this.

If you smoke, you get cancer. This is because the will to take a reward that is not earned overrides the will to give. When we take a reward, suffering follows. Cancer follows smoking. To verify this, the opposite can be seen. If I refuse to smoke, I am suffering without what I desire. I can then suffer more with exercise. In the end, I am creating health by reducing my debt. I must give to make this happen. If my family is to receive the reward of my labor, I need to suffer work. By doing this, they benefit. I am creating positive, but giving something of value for it. Work is a value that gives to the one who suffers the labor and then extends to others. The reward I take causes suffering for me and others as well. It works both ways.

How can this heal the world? Jesus showed the example. Two negatives multiplied make a positive. Have you ever wondered why two things of negative value can equal more positive than when you started? This is how it works.

In mathematics, if you owe three people $10, then you are negative $30 (3 X -10 = $-30). If the lenders then say, "We forgive you for this debt because we love you," then you are free from that debt by another negative. You have just had three subtractions of -10, making you three positives of $10 (-3 X -$10). Your debt is -30 + 30 = Zero. This is because someone else worked for the reward and then applied what they give up to your debt. Jesus died a horrible death to pay our debt, walking us back to a positive value.

We simply do the same by loving others and working for them instead of ourselves. Love heals the debt created by sin and covers that sin by the bounty of what has been give to us.

The idea is to only have the will to give.

Why do we have a 15 trillion dollar debt in this country, with the Federal Reserve possessing 9 trillion of this in lost money? They have not accounted for 9 trillion. Know why? They took it. Their will to take is their reward. The later reward is not given because they will be found to be thieves. Jesus condemned the moneychangers and overturned their tables in the first century. This is a foreshadowing of our day and age.

Their financial tables have been turned. Debt must be suffered by the one who creates it or paid by the one who loves you. We accept the gift with our will to receive. No one will forgive an unrepentant moneychanger.

edit on 4-8-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   




hahah
edit on 4-8-2012 by davesmart because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-8-2012 by davesmart because: tooo much super brew that fosters drinkers wont understand hahahah
edit on 4-8-2012 by davesmart because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


Beutiful insight, Very true, our loved ones so often end up paying our dedts one way or anouther. Just goes to show why we need to put in the work to make sure to create an asset with any dedts we do procure in life.

But truely,very interesting insight, I'm glad I asked. Thank you



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by davesmart
 

This is an odd question, but know any Cowards over there?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scamy1
reply to post by davesmart
 

This is an odd question, but know any Cowards over there?


very odd question indeed...
i will answer that with a question..
are their any cowards in your country?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by davesmart
 

There are quite a few and most are from the uk, Its kind of a strange surname, worst yet having to play hockey wearing it, but alas it is my name, and it's the only one I have. I was curious if it's common over there.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scamy1
reply to post by davesmart
 

There are quite a few and most are from the uk, Its kind of a strange surname, worst yet having to play hockey wearing it, but alas it is my name, and it's the only one I have. I was curious if it's common over there.


i like your humour
you have probably indoctrinated thyself with thy black adder perhaps?

nether the less chum
there is quite a few famous cowards..
thy holy google shall help thee and guide thy in thy wisdom
peace brother
hydro
edit on 4-8-2012 by davesmart because: sod the reason



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Hello Scamy1,

You have posed an interesting question. Here are a few thoughts:

1. You can't have an infinite number of players. In order to determine an outcome of the game, the game must "end", so to speak. With an infinite number of players, the game would go on infinitely.

2. Non-cooperative game theory is one of the algorithms used in modeling and simulation. In order to apply the algorithm to a model, each player has to be assigned a series of values related to a set of characteristics which describe that player's participation in the game.

3. As EnochWasRight so eloquently indicated, at the simplest level the characteristics of cost and benefit must be known. What are the stakeholders willing to surrender in order to achieve their desired outcome?

4. Game theory assumes that the players are rational. So, if a model contains a sufficient number of irrational players, where their collective input carries sufficient weight to alter the outcome of the game, then game theory can not be used. Of course rationality itself is open to interpretation. What may be a rational decision based on short-term goals may not be a rational decision based on long-term goals.

5. One of the characteristics of the model could be a weighting factor that is applied to the votes of each of the stakeholders. For instance, lets look at your example of environmental equilibrium: If every individual on earth were to have an equal vote, that outcome would likely be far different than if each vote were weighted in favor of stakeholders with greater income or net worth. With respect to all negotiations on this planet, the latter is always the case.

6. Bruce Bueno de Mesquita uses applied game theory in his consulting practice. His book, The Predictioneer's Game, is an easy and interesting read about his use of game theory. You may have seen an interview with him on one of the History Channel Nostradamus specials.

Hopefully some of that information will be of use to you.

Dex



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
It can be possible, with some "minor" adds :

1.get rid of the money as currency
2.lower the world population to 1 billion humans
3.get rid of all the banks
4.dismantle all armies and weapons


Yeah, it is feasable.





new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join