> On Wed, 06 Sep 2000, Eugene Leitl wrote:
>
> > Of course, by expressing the planned behaviour, we're collectively
> > changing the state of the system, and hence introduce an additional
> > uncertainty. The others constitute a major part of the fitness
> > function, which has to move when their strategies move. For instance,
> > all the fat dotcom fishes in a tiny pond create a lot of ruckus, and
> > muddy the waters. Mutually making planning more difficult. Time for
> > some dynamite fishing ;)
Or to answer it in a different way than I originally did, one makes
projections under the assumption that state changes will occur. Most
games (e.g. chess) are played in this way. The real trick is accurately
predicting complicated state changes several manipulations later. As has
been shown in games such as chess, technology can be quite adept at
accurately forecasting and manipulating state changes in games, given
sufficient information about the system it is observing. I can choose to
attack individual fish or the entire school of fish; the strategy is
different in each case, but the principles are the same and only the
resolution really varies. Determining the better strategy depends
strictly on my goals.
-James Rogers
jamesr@best.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:21 MDT