Nash Equilibrium

''GrandUser:Serprex 04:08, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

The party is raging, and I'm in a corner spinning full throttle on the Nash equilibrium of rock paper scissors. Full throttle in so far as alcohol will allow. Now she's sitting across from me, "Hey, what's going on?" I'm confused by the question and make to ask what's meant by such ambiguities, "You're sitting here, thinking. What are you thinking?" I begin to serialize into words the graphs my mind has drawn up for a rock paper scissors AI, but she's gone when I'm half way through saying Nash equilibrium

It's a losing strategy to explain strategy. I need to stop thinking about Nash equilibrium, it's obviously not the Nash equilibrium for how to think at a party. People aren't here to find out the depth of other's thoughts. They aren't here to be grilled for information about their own depths. They're here to get drunk so that they can think even less than they usually do

I can't get up. As soon as I do, anyone could design a ploy to ridicule. So long as I don't make to be interested, they can't make a show of denying me. The Nash equilibrium when dealing with irrational people isn't minimax. Sure, this isn't zero sum, but it can still be worked out that some will act for minimal benefit where there isn't a community to punish their exploitation of the tragedy of the commons. Maybe that's the issue here, I'm failing to see the community policies to being inviting, because it's my own ineptitude which is incapable to see the entrance. That'd also explain why I'm incapable of destroying these people who assume such faith in my good will. There's some kind of an inertia in their mass which I am unable to sway, even when they're swarming in such dischord

I make to offer a drink, "Who do you think you are?", I try to determine the exact semantics of identity, but before I can even begin to ask what they meant by the question, they're gone. Is it so wrong to assume answers to questions which have only one conventional answer? Attempts at small talk end with small effect, it's as if getting a grip requires destructive behavior. Horizon problem. The apathy of others forces melodrama. A better evaluation function is required

How may we aspire for the best in each of us, when we must build for the worst?

A shout into the crowd, it receives a glare and an outlier. "You don't have to do anything," I'm left to consider this direct attack on the constraint, but it seems the proposal is too great a sacrifice to be capable of continuing into solving the original intent. My jarbled start at explaining is cut off, "You don't have to aspire to anything." Great, some pretentious nihilist has decided to crusade upon my efforts to deny that the Nash equilibrium of life doesn't carry life. "Lest I detest what must be done." The plea to the subjective by the ego, does it know no end? My mind calls for me to flee from what can only be my enemy, but probability threshholds figure that the volatility of this conversation's impact on my future has a greater chance of success than the already determined future I'd find in flight. Only now I'm left to determine the exact measure of success, of which the time required would likely disrupt this conversation by the thought I've not devoted to my responses people seem to hear while I remain deaf to myself