-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Equations 3, 4 double checked. Style questions #10
Comments
Importantly, though, I got same answer for Eq 3 and 4 |
I struggle with this too. Can you try to rework it and we can just choose On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Steve Koch notifications@github.comwrote:
|
I think the Fd-1 is wrong. Fd is the frequency of defectors. With two strategies (ie. D and C) then 1-Fd = Fc ( the frequency of cooperators). With three (D, C and TFT) we have to keep track of two frequencies 1 - Fd - Ftft = Fc. There is an error somewhere I"m sure. Did I screw it up? If so, we need to check the simulation code. |
We need to verify the equations, verify the simulation code then close yes? I can do this. |
I double checked Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 now that I understood the game. Neither one is complicated, of course, but wondering about style: IF someone wanted to read the relations without looking at the graphs. I don't think this is a big deal, since the graphs show the important information. As an example, I first came up with this for EQ 3:
I don't have a strong opinion. The alternative came when I wrote out the simple sum. It's easier to see the behavior as mu gets large. But has a stranger factor like (FD -1).
Thoughts?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: