|
|
|
|
|
|
by eric-hu
5436 days ago
|
|
|
Interesting notation :) I agree that the starting move I proposed was sub-optimal. That was an arbitrary move I chose to get the idea in motion. That algorithm is optimal in a greedy sense--going for the most immediate gains with no memory or foresight. I think this is where the game starts failing as a model for reality. The optimal game algorithm would probably have enough look-aheads to force the other players to the other side, and then take the 'majority' 1+ by moving to that same side, but closest to the 0, giving it 1 + an infinitesimal market share on the other side. In reality, there are moving costs and one does not simply "win" when holding a majority market share. Perhaps a redefinition of the game is in order? |
|
|