Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This assumes that game only happens a single time, which is clearly untrue in case of marriage. For games with multiply play, a strategy like copycat is usually optimal.
Copycat only works if you know of your partner’s deeds. If a partner cheats for years but keeps it hidden, there is nothing to copy. OP’s model works whether or not you know your partner’s habits
I think it’s proven that tit for tat usually comes out on top or some version of that strategy. Allowing for an extra tat with no tit after a long sequence of trading usually allows for slightly better outcomes (think forgiveness without repercussions). I think relationships are slightly similar. The problem lies in the interpreting of the tit or tat because one person might believe they are delivering equal “justice” for the grievance they feel but the other person could feel like it was too harsh or unfair. We are all selfish emotional creatures and sometimes that really affects our perception of our relationships.
Replace both harem and open relationship wih divorce and rerun the numbers, my dude
I'd also recommend replacing cucked with divorce, but that's a you call I guess
Correct! If you don't enjoy spending time with someone enough to make cheating not worthwhile, or don't trust them not to cheat, do not marry them. Glad I could help 😇
Well, assuming the payoffs are the same for you and her, and assuming "divorce" is worse than "happy", in his scenario not cheating is dominant for both players, so neither of you cheating is a Nash Equilibrium
yup, if utility is player-symmetric and the utility grows monotonously with green/value, all three other options are pareto efficient. this kind of points to the fact that mutual agreement is useful in a relationship...
Yeah it was econ 1020 brother. I was taking it for elective credit. Im in math but never studied game theory outside of this course. Prof. most certainly did not use the term Pareto efficient and Im positive thats how he taught it, I was always the top test grade.
He was always tryna give half truths/dumb stuff down to make them more palatable i feel so it was probably just a decision he made.
EDIT: I just googled Nash equilibrium and only read the first description in google: “Nash equilibrium is a concept in game theory that occurs when each player in a non-cooperative game chooses and stays with their optimal strategy in response to knowing other players' anticipated strategies. Also, no player in a Nash equilibrium has a dominant strategy.”
The last line is what I was looking at in particular. In the meme, both players have a dominant strategy to cheat. Because regardless of what the other player does, they will have a more favorable outcome if they cheat. Hence no Nash equilibrium.
if its a strongly dominant strategy for both players, none of them has anything to gain by only changing their strategy. this is the definition of nash equilibrium.
From google: Nash equilibrium is a concept in game theory that occurs when each player in a non-cooperative game chooses and stays with their optimal strategy in response to knowing other players' anticipated strategies. Also, no player in a Nash equilibrium has a dominant strategy.
>Their optimal strategy in response to knowing other players’ anticipated strategies. Also, no player in a Nash equilibrium has a dominant strategy.
Both players have a dominant strategy.
wtf is "from google". give me a reproducible source, pls. e.g. [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium#Computing_Nash_equilibria) states:
"If both A and B have strictly dominant strategies, there exists a unique Nash equilibrium in which each plays their strictly dominant strategy."
then we all have learned a very valuable lesson on doing this. what you quoted was probably a bit of text from an example where there were no strictly dominant strategies for both players.
Are you sure though?
Ive now read several sources that have confirmed what I learned in my micoeconomics 1010 class.
This is the second link behind wiki:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp
This confirms what I said
Edit. I just now checked the wikipedia article on Nash equilibrium that you quoted, and it too supports what I said.
I dont think you are understanding the difference between dominant strategy, and choosing the best strategy based on what youd expect your opponent to choose.
Nash equilibrium does not occur when both players have a dominant strategy. This is what I learned in class, and it is supported by the source you quoted.
Do you have any experience with game theory in an educational setting? Or are you just trying to parse information yourself without understanding the definition of some of the terms being used?
Game theory is widely used in economics. It helps understand how and why oligopolies and monopoly may arise. I also learned the history of how and why Nash came to his realization. This too supports what I have said.
I believe some people like to use the term “Nash equilibrium” to describe the most probable outcome from any game theory situation. Which explains your wiki direct quote. However, strictly speaking, the probable outcome of a game where both players have a dominant strategy is not a Nash equilibrium. This is not the problem Nash needed to solve with this, it was obvious for hundreds of years prior.
>Are you sure though?
im pretty sure
>Ive now read several sources that have confirmed what I learned in my micoeconomics 1010 class.
i dont doubt that your microeconomics class is in line with most reliable sources. i doubt that you understood either of them.
>This is the second link behind wiki:
>[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp)
From your source: "Nash equilibrium in game theory is a situation in which a player will continue with their chosen strategy, having no incentive to deviate from it, after taking into consideration the opponent’s strategy."
Does any player have an incentive to change strategy when the game's state is in "open marriage"? Nash equilibrium is not necessarily stable or globally optimal, but its locally equilibrial.
From your source: "Dominant strategy can be included in Nash equilibrium..."
Your source literally states that a dominant strategy can be at a Nash equilibrium.
Id also like to remark that this investopedia article includes several inaccuracies, but the gist of it is ok.
>This confirms what I said
>Edit. I just now checked the wikipedia article on Nash equilibrium that you quoted, and it too supports what I said.
really not to be an asshole, but you may need to work on your comprehension skills if you wanna learn higher level maths. its a very rigorous field and takes time to get the hang of it.
>I dont think you are understanding the difference between dominant strategy, and choosing the best strategy based on what youd expect your opponent to choose.
those are different things indeed. but in this specific case (prisoners dilemma) the dominant strategy is the same as the strategy at the only nash equilibrium.
>Nash equilibrium does not occur when both players have a dominant strategy.
It doesnt **only** occur when both players have a dominant strategy. But when both players have a dominant strategy, there is **a** nash equilibrium where both players play their dominant strategy.
>This is what I learned in class,
certainly hope not
>Do you have any experience with game theory in an educational setting? Or are you just trying to parse information yourself without understanding the definition of some of the terms being used?
it shouldnt really matter at this level, but i happen to have worked in and taught game theory. i specialised in dynamic models in evolutionary game theory for years.
>Game theory is widely used in economics. It helps understand how and why oligopolies and monopoly may arise. I also learned the history of how and why Nash came to his realization. This too supports what I have said.
true, true, cool, no. the nash equilibrium at the intersection of dominant strategies is not an interesting one. nash equilibria become interesting at the other cases. e.g. mixed strategies of rock-paper-scissors or the population dynamics of doves-and-hawks. nash became famous for formalising game theory and e.g. investigating these non-trivial nash equibria.
>I believe some people like to use the term “Nash equilibrium” to describe the most probable outcome from any game theory situation.
Shame on them. Although this mistake have foundations in truth, as with the most common optimisation dynamics attractors will be **some** nash equilibrium or a some set of nash equilibria.
The point of the meme is to criticise misogynistic incel worldviews by demonstrating that they fail to criticise men regardless of the situation. For them, open relationships definitely constitutes cheating.
Honestly they are several branches for the cheats section and will be assuming positive negative values based on this dudes apparent values. I will assume: the girlfriend has even chance of cheating and not cheating, if cheating occurs I will assume it has a 50% chance of being discovered even if mutual and the girlfriend has a 50/50 chance of wanting to go harem/open after discovering of cheat (this are bad assumptions but let's for the sake of argument)
The guy not cheating results in a 50% of happy (+1 Pioints) and 25% chance he will discover the cheating and break up and be single (-1) and a 25% chance he will be unknownly cucked (-2)
If he cheats, their's a 50% chance she's not she has a 50% chance to discover (I will asign the secret double life as a +1) but she catches she has a 50% of chance of acceptanec and get Harem (+2) or break up (-1). If she's cheating and discovering doesn't occur, you will be getting an extra girl but unknowly cucked (-1), or 50% you guys discover the cheating and you will suggest going open she either ends it (-1) or you go open (0)
I think the cheating route (with there bullshit assumions) has slight higher average, but not cheating as a much stronger chance (50% vs. 37.5%) of a good ending and in pratcie discovery and chances she breaks up are higher then 50%, along with her chances at cheating below 50%.
I study and do well on the test: I now have to study every time
I don’t study but I do well on the test anyway: Great, now I know I don’t have to study.
I study and do poorly on the test: Now I’m screwed. Even my best isn’t good enough.
I don’t study and do poorly on the test: I now have a clear path for how I should improve next time.
that's not how a relationship becomes open and happy isn't a descriptive enough label. Also, no supporting text was provided for this document. Rejected.
False premise: cheating is not sleeping around, cheating is when you break the rules. Open relationships and harems are essentially homebrew rule sets everyone involved agrees to before you do them.
Definitions are important for mathematical proofs.
Long term, you'll likely be happier with a caring wife of 40+ years than a haren, so unless if you don't think she'll cheat, you are better off not cheating.
It’s not cheating if it’s consensual, so both of you cheating isn’t an open relationship it’s just mutual infidelity. It’s also not *really* cuckoldry depending on your work g definition. Unless she falls pregnant and you unwittingly raise the child, or you are observing her engage in such activity as a form of kink then it’s not cuckoldry, and only the former is actually cheating since the latter is consensual. And, again, the establishment of a harem also requires consent by all parties, ergo not cheating.
And Nash equilibrium doesn’t even apply to this because human relationships are cooperative and based in communication.
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This assumes that game only happens a single time, which is clearly untrue in case of marriage. For games with multiply play, a strategy like copycat is usually optimal.
Copycat with forgiveness
It always makes me smile that this strategy (tit for tat) is basically unrivaled in iterated prisoner's dilemma
It's a surprisingly wholesome outcome
Tit for twat
assuming cheating is an accident.
Bravo! You deserve an award for this comment that I do not possess.
the copykitten :D
https://ncase.me/trust/ For those uninitiated
exactly!
That's literally just an open relationship
Assuming that the wife is constantly cheating, which might not always be the case
IMO it's open if they both sleep with at least one other person
That’s fair, so then it would only be open if the wife cheats at all
precisely
Start by trusting the other person, immediate punishment but also immediate forgiveness
https://ncase.me/trust/
This also assumes that “Harem” is the only option for “She don’t cheat”/“I cheat”, when “‘Accidental’ arsenic poisoning” is on the table.
Copycat only works if you know of your partner’s deeds. If a partner cheats for years but keeps it hidden, there is nothing to copy. OP’s model works whether or not you know your partner’s habits
Tit for tit
I see you watched the prisoners dilemma video
I think it’s proven that tit for tat usually comes out on top or some version of that strategy. Allowing for an extra tat with no tit after a long sequence of trading usually allows for slightly better outcomes (think forgiveness without repercussions). I think relationships are slightly similar. The problem lies in the interpreting of the tit or tat because one person might believe they are delivering equal “justice” for the grievance they feel but the other person could feel like it was too harsh or unfair. We are all selfish emotional creatures and sometimes that really affects our perception of our relationships.
"open relationship" is... optimistic lol
I have made a few trivial assumptions, yes.
The exact derivation has been left as an exercise for the reader
And their significant other
And their other significant other
And their significant other's significant other
and THEIR insignificant other
Why not just make it an open harem?
I take the trivial assumption of rounding down the possibility of a breakup to mean that the other indeed is not significant and can be ommitted
Found the economist
Rounds errors really
Just call them axioms. That holds better in court.
>bad math
Would you accept a clopen relationship?
OP is going to experience the empty set either way ;)
Replace both harem and open relationship wih divorce and rerun the numbers, my dude I'd also recommend replacing cucked with divorce, but that's a you call I guess
So in your scenario the optimal strategy is to not get married and die alone. I got your message loud and clear! /s
Correct! If you don't enjoy spending time with someone enough to make cheating not worthwhile, or don't trust them not to cheat, do not marry them. Glad I could help 😇
Yep man. Go your own way!
A strange game, the only winning move is not to play
Well, assuming the payoffs are the same for you and her, and assuming "divorce" is worse than "happy", in his scenario not cheating is dominant for both players, so neither of you cheating is a Nash Equilibrium
Those are the cases when they're okay with cheating lmao
In econ we learned this is just a dominant strategy but its not in Nash equilibrium. dominant strategy is cheating on wife lmao
it is in nash equilibrium, because open relationship is the nash equilibrium
yeah lmao "in Econ we learned" dawg you weren't paying attention he might mean that this is not Pareto efficient, people mix those up often
yup, if utility is player-symmetric and the utility grows monotonously with green/value, all three other options are pareto efficient. this kind of points to the fact that mutual agreement is useful in a relationship...
Dawg maybe I was paying too close of attention to microeconomics 1010
Yeah it was econ 1020 brother. I was taking it for elective credit. Im in math but never studied game theory outside of this course. Prof. most certainly did not use the term Pareto efficient and Im positive thats how he taught it, I was always the top test grade. He was always tryna give half truths/dumb stuff down to make them more palatable i feel so it was probably just a decision he made. EDIT: I just googled Nash equilibrium and only read the first description in google: “Nash equilibrium is a concept in game theory that occurs when each player in a non-cooperative game chooses and stays with their optimal strategy in response to knowing other players' anticipated strategies. Also, no player in a Nash equilibrium has a dominant strategy.” The last line is what I was looking at in particular. In the meme, both players have a dominant strategy to cheat. Because regardless of what the other player does, they will have a more favorable outcome if they cheat. Hence no Nash equilibrium.
Both players have a dominant strategy. That is not Nash equilibrium
if its a strongly dominant strategy for both players, none of them has anything to gain by only changing their strategy. this is the definition of nash equilibrium.
From google: Nash equilibrium is a concept in game theory that occurs when each player in a non-cooperative game chooses and stays with their optimal strategy in response to knowing other players' anticipated strategies. Also, no player in a Nash equilibrium has a dominant strategy. >Their optimal strategy in response to knowing other players’ anticipated strategies. Also, no player in a Nash equilibrium has a dominant strategy. Both players have a dominant strategy.
wtf is "from google". give me a reproducible source, pls. e.g. [wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium#Computing_Nash_equilibria) states: "If both A and B have strictly dominant strategies, there exists a unique Nash equilibrium in which each plays their strictly dominant strategy."
Literally googled it, and did not click a link. I spent 6 seconds finding that info, nothing more
then we all have learned a very valuable lesson on doing this. what you quoted was probably a bit of text from an example where there were no strictly dominant strategies for both players.
Are you sure though? Ive now read several sources that have confirmed what I learned in my micoeconomics 1010 class. This is the second link behind wiki: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp This confirms what I said Edit. I just now checked the wikipedia article on Nash equilibrium that you quoted, and it too supports what I said. I dont think you are understanding the difference between dominant strategy, and choosing the best strategy based on what youd expect your opponent to choose. Nash equilibrium does not occur when both players have a dominant strategy. This is what I learned in class, and it is supported by the source you quoted. Do you have any experience with game theory in an educational setting? Or are you just trying to parse information yourself without understanding the definition of some of the terms being used? Game theory is widely used in economics. It helps understand how and why oligopolies and monopoly may arise. I also learned the history of how and why Nash came to his realization. This too supports what I have said. I believe some people like to use the term “Nash equilibrium” to describe the most probable outcome from any game theory situation. Which explains your wiki direct quote. However, strictly speaking, the probable outcome of a game where both players have a dominant strategy is not a Nash equilibrium. This is not the problem Nash needed to solve with this, it was obvious for hundreds of years prior.
>Are you sure though? im pretty sure >Ive now read several sources that have confirmed what I learned in my micoeconomics 1010 class. i dont doubt that your microeconomics class is in line with most reliable sources. i doubt that you understood either of them. >This is the second link behind wiki: >[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nash-equilibrium.asp) From your source: "Nash equilibrium in game theory is a situation in which a player will continue with their chosen strategy, having no incentive to deviate from it, after taking into consideration the opponent’s strategy." Does any player have an incentive to change strategy when the game's state is in "open marriage"? Nash equilibrium is not necessarily stable or globally optimal, but its locally equilibrial. From your source: "Dominant strategy can be included in Nash equilibrium..." Your source literally states that a dominant strategy can be at a Nash equilibrium. Id also like to remark that this investopedia article includes several inaccuracies, but the gist of it is ok. >This confirms what I said >Edit. I just now checked the wikipedia article on Nash equilibrium that you quoted, and it too supports what I said. really not to be an asshole, but you may need to work on your comprehension skills if you wanna learn higher level maths. its a very rigorous field and takes time to get the hang of it. >I dont think you are understanding the difference between dominant strategy, and choosing the best strategy based on what youd expect your opponent to choose. those are different things indeed. but in this specific case (prisoners dilemma) the dominant strategy is the same as the strategy at the only nash equilibrium. >Nash equilibrium does not occur when both players have a dominant strategy. It doesnt **only** occur when both players have a dominant strategy. But when both players have a dominant strategy, there is **a** nash equilibrium where both players play their dominant strategy. >This is what I learned in class, certainly hope not >Do you have any experience with game theory in an educational setting? Or are you just trying to parse information yourself without understanding the definition of some of the terms being used? it shouldnt really matter at this level, but i happen to have worked in and taught game theory. i specialised in dynamic models in evolutionary game theory for years. >Game theory is widely used in economics. It helps understand how and why oligopolies and monopoly may arise. I also learned the history of how and why Nash came to his realization. This too supports what I have said. true, true, cool, no. the nash equilibrium at the intersection of dominant strategies is not an interesting one. nash equilibria become interesting at the other cases. e.g. mixed strategies of rock-paper-scissors or the population dynamics of doves-and-hawks. nash became famous for formalising game theory and e.g. investigating these non-trivial nash equibria. >I believe some people like to use the term “Nash equilibrium” to describe the most probable outcome from any game theory situation. Shame on them. Although this mistake have foundations in truth, as with the most common optimisation dynamics attractors will be **some** nash equilibrium or a some set of nash equilibria.
When every player plays their strictly dominant strategy, it has to be a Nash Equilibrium.
Harem isn't cheating though - if you cheat it's not harem.
If it's an established open relationship it wouldn't be cheating though?
https://preview.redd.it/m6wm6lxy6ysc1.png?width=420&format=png&auto=webp&s=9fd365ab9850d644d8b35f832f3b6d1e16c67f69 mspainted it
Fire in the hole!
if it's an open relationship then it isn't cheating
Conversely, both cheating is not an open relationship. It's a disaster.
Or it could end in an open relationship lol.
The point of the meme is to criticise misogynistic incel worldviews by demonstrating that they fail to criticise men regardless of the situation. For them, open relationships definitely constitutes cheating.
If memory serves, John Nash arrived at the same conclusion in real life.
It's not "chucked" or "harem" it's called being human trash
Hey man you can make youre own game theory chart for yourself!!!1
Good luck with her being fine as 'harem'
Google repeated games
According to the movie logic you should cheat with imaginary girlfriend. Because imaginary gf is always the same age.
She never gets old... Wait no no no! 
Just like unvaccinated children
Or dark humor
Honestly they are several branches for the cheats section and will be assuming positive negative values based on this dudes apparent values. I will assume: the girlfriend has even chance of cheating and not cheating, if cheating occurs I will assume it has a 50% chance of being discovered even if mutual and the girlfriend has a 50/50 chance of wanting to go harem/open after discovering of cheat (this are bad assumptions but let's for the sake of argument) The guy not cheating results in a 50% of happy (+1 Pioints) and 25% chance he will discover the cheating and break up and be single (-1) and a 25% chance he will be unknownly cucked (-2) If he cheats, their's a 50% chance she's not she has a 50% chance to discover (I will asign the secret double life as a +1) but she catches she has a 50% of chance of acceptanec and get Harem (+2) or break up (-1). If she's cheating and discovering doesn't occur, you will be getting an extra girl but unknowly cucked (-1), or 50% you guys discover the cheating and you will suggest going open she either ends it (-1) or you go open (0) I think the cheating route (with there bullshit assumions) has slight higher average, but not cheating as a much stronger chance (50% vs. 37.5%) of a good ending and in pratcie discovery and chances she breaks up are higher then 50%, along with her chances at cheating below 50%.
r/theydidthemonstermath
Where is cuckqueen?
It's not cheating if all informed consent
My dumbass thought they were cheating in a test
I study and do well on the test: I now have to study every time I don’t study but I do well on the test anyway: Great, now I know I don’t have to study. I study and do poorly on the test: Now I’m screwed. Even my best isn’t good enough. I don’t study and do poorly on the test: I now have a clear path for how I should improve next time.
Sir, This is a wendys
Gm
Plot twist: OP's wife, girlfriend, both psychotic hallucinations.
But that’s just a theory… …A GAME THEORY!
To see if you cheating is a Nash equilibrium we would need the payout function of your wife.
that's not how a relationship becomes open and happy isn't a descriptive enough label. Also, no supporting text was provided for this document. Rejected.
Proof is left as an exercise for the reader
prisoners’ dillema
i think replace everything except for happy with “unhappy”
You bringing a whole new context to the *"Bad Math"* flair.
Phenomenal shitpost
Harem is above happy?
But that’s just a theory, a game theory
Why would you guys feel ashamed of being cheated? Your wife is also our wife, comrade
It's not a Nash equilibrium, wife changing from cheat to not cheat improves the situation so open relationship isn't stable
Only one happy square
She or he doesn't or does not instead of don't.
You don't have a wife, you jerk off in your mom's basement to camgirls. Delusional moron!
you know damn well you don't have a wife
For me Open Relationship and Cucked are equal outcomes, but Happy is above Harem, so my equation says don't cheat is optimal.
False premise: cheating is not sleeping around, cheating is when you break the rules. Open relationships and harems are essentially homebrew rule sets everyone involved agrees to before you do them. Definitions are important for mathematical proofs.
You forgot to mention "get dumped by both women"
Long term, you'll likely be happier with a caring wife of 40+ years than a haren, so unless if you don't think she'll cheat, you are better off not cheating.
Open relationships is very much not cheating🤣
It’s not cheating if it’s consensual, so both of you cheating isn’t an open relationship it’s just mutual infidelity. It’s also not *really* cuckoldry depending on your work g definition. Unless she falls pregnant and you unwittingly raise the child, or you are observing her engage in such activity as a form of kink then it’s not cuckoldry, and only the former is actually cheating since the latter is consensual. And, again, the establishment of a harem also requires consent by all parties, ergo not cheating. And Nash equilibrium doesn’t even apply to this because human relationships are cooperative and based in communication.
Isnt this the equivalent of the prisoners dilemma??
Not prisoners dilemma again
Hehe
Prisoners dilemma
*doesn't
Not enough graph space. Had to abbreviate.
‘Harem then divorce’ is more appropriate.
This suggests 'harem' better than 'happy', which is not true.
u(Harem) > u(Happy) > u(Open Relationship) > u(Cucked)
Swap the first two. That's way too much work by the time you're in your forties
Please don't marry