If it’s the case that the game theory here is correct I’m sad why it can’t be simply explained as such, if the game theory here isn’t correct I’m sad it’s curated.
I’m unsure what you mean by “simply explained” and how it’s different from this post. Do you mean you wanted to see a formal proof of the theorem instead of an illustrative example? Or that you dislike the dialog format?
I wrote a what I believe to be simpler explanation of this post here. Things I tried to do differently:
More clearly explaining what Nash equilibrium means for infinitely repeated games—it’s a little subtle, and if you go into it just with intuition, it’s not clear why the “everyone puts 99” situation can be a Nash equilibrium
Noting that just because something is a Nash equilibrium doesn’t mean it’s what the game is going to converge to
Less emphasis on minimax stuff (it’s just boilerplate, not really the main point of folk theorems)
If it’s the case that the game theory here is correct I’m sad why it can’t be simply explained as such, if the game theory here isn’t correct I’m sad it’s curated.
I’m unsure what you mean by “simply explained” and how it’s different from this post. Do you mean you wanted to see a formal proof of the theorem instead of an illustrative example? Or that you dislike the dialog format?
I wrote a what I believe to be simpler explanation of this post here. Things I tried to do differently:
More clearly explaining what Nash equilibrium means for infinitely repeated games—it’s a little subtle, and if you go into it just with intuition, it’s not clear why the “everyone puts 99” situation can be a Nash equilibrium
Noting that just because something is a Nash equilibrium doesn’t mean it’s what the game is going to converge to
Less emphasis on minimax stuff (it’s just boilerplate, not really the main point of folk theorems)