To your credit, you do appear to have actually read and understood the math of the prisoners dilemma, which is far more than most people claiming to refute a well established result in a blog post.
Anyway, there’s a lot to unpack to your argument, but superficially it looks like you’re basically substituting the iterated variant of the prisoners dilemma for the normal case on the basis that assuming you might be in an iterated situation is the rational thing to do in general? I don’t know if that’s true, but even if it is, I don’t know that its useful to “refute” the the prisoners dilemma since its main use is as a pedagogical example rather than an important result in its own right.
I appreciate the kind words. I can go back and clarify the language of the post to convey that I’m not actually smuggling in a form of iterated prisoner’s dilemma, rather this is specifically describing a one-shot play of the prisoner’s dilemma where Alice and Bob need not have ever met before or ever meet again.
Again, from Reddit:
I appreciate the kind words. I can go back and clarify the language of the post to convey that I’m not actually smuggling in a form of iterated prisoner’s dilemma, rather this is specifically describing a one-shot play of the prisoner’s dilemma where Alice and Bob need not have ever met before or ever meet again.