[0,1] game exercise

[Aisthesis]

Do you think it would create more or less confusion at this point if I started using the term "strategy" for what I have been calling an ordered pair (in the case of this game) of decision-sets? Then I could use the term "strategy-adaptation function" (I think you suggested something like that in an earlier post) for what I have up to now been calling a "strategy-function."

The only thing is that I'm not about to re-write all this stuff in those terms. So, I don't want to create additional confusion by switching terminology in mid-stream. If you think it's better to switch, I'll be glad to. But if I do, please bear this change in mind when discussing anything in my previous posts (which will all be in the old terminology).

The main thing is that we have some consistent way of talking about the mathematical objects we're dealing with. We can call them "goons" and "spoons" for all I care, but it will make things much easier if we're both (or anyone else who joins in) using the same terms for the same objects.

What I'm obviously driving at here is the question of how important these strategy-adaptation functions really are. And, if we adopt that terminology, I'm working my way up to trying to show that when we've loosely been speaking of "optimal strategies," we were probably actually talking about (partial specifications of) optimal strategy-adaptation functions.

Whether or not that is the case is going to depend on the actual results we get when playing around with some different strategies in some of the games we've been examining.