Monday, April 23, 2007
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
A date which will live in infamy
......Then finally, came the day of them all.
The day we fans must never forget and keep in our minds for ever as we work hard on perfecting our hatred towards the corrupt member of the league.
The day we realized this season would officially go down in legend as a sham of football history.
The day we realized perhaps we were a great side, perhaps we were better than them, perhaps we could have stopped what they have all comspired to make them the continually most successful team in this country.
The 31st round of the league in this season. The day, the twenty-sixth of April, 1998, a date which will live in infamy.
The day we fans must never forget and keep in our minds for ever as we work hard on perfecting our hatred towards the corrupt member of the league.
The day we realized this season would officially go down in legend as a sham of football history.
The day we realized perhaps we were a great side, perhaps we were better than them, perhaps we could have stopped what they have all comspired to make them the continually most successful team in this country.
The 31st round of the league in this season. The day, the twenty-sixth of April, 1998, a date which will live in infamy.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
Security of Love - The Berlin Wall
Security of love is a game with no beginning and no ending, no winner and no loser. It's a mistake to think that security is an achievable, fixed, static state. It's simply not possible to get security of love right once and for all, because the meaning of "right" is constantly changing. This situation has been with us since we humans started forming communities, and it's likely to be with us as long as we continue to be human.
An important precept is to expect both passive and active failures. No matter how good your countermeasure is, it will fail. And no matter how good your boyfriend is, he will break. These facts have been proven again and again throughout human history, and there's no reason to believe it will ever change. "Unbreakable," "absolute," and "impenetrable" are all words that make no sense when discussing love. If you hear them, you can be sure you're listening to someone who doesn't understand love or is trying to hoodwink you. Your boyfriend would remain loyal to you for 20 years before he sleeps with another girl. Good relationships are those in anticipation of possible failures. You can't win. You just make other girls' attacks as hard as possible, and contain the damage.
Consider this example: The Berlin Wall was one of the most secure systems ever built in human history. It has presented impressive series of countermeasures. As you read through the list, notice the defense in depth, the combination of prevention, detection, and response, and the overall resilience of the security system. From east to west, there were:
- 302 watchtowers, with armed East German guards.
- An initial barrier, either a 12-foot-all smooth concrete wall or a 10- to 13-foot-high wire-mesh fence. The wall was intermittently outfitted with some kind of electronic warning device.
- A field of steel stakes, planted in the ground, known as Stalin’s Grass.
- Barbed wire entanglements.
- 20 bunkers scattered along the perimeter.
- Hundreds of leashed guard dogs running alone a rail.
- A 20- to 50-foot strip of sand-covered earth, designed to reveal footprints of anyone crossing. This strip was also mined.
- A ditch, 10 to 16 feet deep, designed to stop any vehicles that got that far.
- A road with specially designed noiseless armed patrol vehicles.
- An electric fence six and a half feet high, outfitted with either acoustic or optical alarms.
- A narrow band of barren land, called the Death Strip.
- A final barrier, a concrete wall between 11.5 and 13 feet high. An asbestos cement tube topped this wall, designed to prevent escapes from grabbing hold of the top. This is the wall that was graffiti-covered on the Western side, the one featured on the nightly news worldwide.
Despite this interwoven system of protection, detection, and response, throughout its half-century history people tried numerous ways to attack it. Some flew over the wall. Some tunneled under it. Many died in the attempt, but thousands of people still managed to escape Eastern Europe. It's worth repeating: No countermeasure is perfect, unlimited in its capabilities, completely and permanently impervious to attack. No such countermeasure exists, and, I would argue, no such countermeasure will ever exist.
One last question still remains: Why did the people risk their life in an attempt to escape Eastern Europe? Perhaps this is the question that the designers of the Berlin Wall system never considered about. Perhaps this question was far beyond their knowledge, or they just simply didn't care. But everything must have a reason.
In some sense, it was again a "trade-off" problem. The people in Eastern Europe risked their life in exchange of something – the hope of a better life. On the other side of the Wall, they would have cars, they would have refrigerators, they would have TV sets, and most importantly, they would have freedom.
An important precept is to expect both passive and active failures. No matter how good your countermeasure is, it will fail. And no matter how good your boyfriend is, he will break. These facts have been proven again and again throughout human history, and there's no reason to believe it will ever change. "Unbreakable," "absolute," and "impenetrable" are all words that make no sense when discussing love. If you hear them, you can be sure you're listening to someone who doesn't understand love or is trying to hoodwink you. Your boyfriend would remain loyal to you for 20 years before he sleeps with another girl. Good relationships are those in anticipation of possible failures. You can't win. You just make other girls' attacks as hard as possible, and contain the damage.
Consider this example: The Berlin Wall was one of the most secure systems ever built in human history. It has presented impressive series of countermeasures. As you read through the list, notice the defense in depth, the combination of prevention, detection, and response, and the overall resilience of the security system. From east to west, there were:
- 302 watchtowers, with armed East German guards.
- An initial barrier, either a 12-foot-all smooth concrete wall or a 10- to 13-foot-high wire-mesh fence. The wall was intermittently outfitted with some kind of electronic warning device.
- A field of steel stakes, planted in the ground, known as Stalin’s Grass.
- Barbed wire entanglements.
- 20 bunkers scattered along the perimeter.
- Hundreds of leashed guard dogs running alone a rail.
- A 20- to 50-foot strip of sand-covered earth, designed to reveal footprints of anyone crossing. This strip was also mined.
- A ditch, 10 to 16 feet deep, designed to stop any vehicles that got that far.
- A road with specially designed noiseless armed patrol vehicles.
- An electric fence six and a half feet high, outfitted with either acoustic or optical alarms.
- A narrow band of barren land, called the Death Strip.
- A final barrier, a concrete wall between 11.5 and 13 feet high. An asbestos cement tube topped this wall, designed to prevent escapes from grabbing hold of the top. This is the wall that was graffiti-covered on the Western side, the one featured on the nightly news worldwide.
Despite this interwoven system of protection, detection, and response, throughout its half-century history people tried numerous ways to attack it. Some flew over the wall. Some tunneled under it. Many died in the attempt, but thousands of people still managed to escape Eastern Europe. It's worth repeating: No countermeasure is perfect, unlimited in its capabilities, completely and permanently impervious to attack. No such countermeasure exists, and, I would argue, no such countermeasure will ever exist.
One last question still remains: Why did the people risk their life in an attempt to escape Eastern Europe? Perhaps this is the question that the designers of the Berlin Wall system never considered about. Perhaps this question was far beyond their knowledge, or they just simply didn't care. But everything must have a reason.
In some sense, it was again a "trade-off" problem. The people in Eastern Europe risked their life in exchange of something – the hope of a better life. On the other side of the Wall, they would have cars, they would have refrigerators, they would have TV sets, and most importantly, they would have freedom.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Security of Love - The Countermeasures
Security of love is a tax on the honest.
If it weren't for attacks, our lives would be a whole lot easier. In a world where every boyfriend was completely honorable and faithful all of the time, and every other girl would have no interest to sleep with your boyfriend, everything you bought and did would be cheaper. You wouldn't have to pay for Swiss door locks, for instance. There would be no countermeasures, because your boyfriend would never consider going where he was not supposed to go or doing what he was not allowed to do. You wouldn't have to check his emails, SMS messages, phone records, or ICQ history. You wouldn't have to call him every 30mins to locate his positions. You wouldn't have to modify your behavior based on risks of your relationship, because there would be none.
But that's not the world we live in. Security of love permeates everything you do and supports your life in innumerable ways. Thus, you constantly making countermeasures (or trade-offs, I will go into details later), whether you're conscious of them or not: large and small, personal and social. All the countermeasures are, in some way, about prevention. But prevention of what, exactly? It is about preventing adverse consequences to your relationship from the intentional and unwarranted actions of others. (Note that: it concerns itself with intentional actions. Protecting your boyfriend from car accidents is safety, not security.)
"Trade-off" really is the right word to describe the countermeasures. Every one of us, every day of our lives, makes security trade-offs. When you brush your teeth in the morning, you're making a security trade-off: the time spent brushing in exchange for a small amount of security against tooth decay. When you lock your boyfriend in a house, you're making a trade-off: the inconvenience of carrying and using a key in exchange for some security against other girls. You call him every 30mins, you check his emails and ICQ messages, all these things you do, you are exchanging something to protect your relationship.
Unfortunately, many countermeasures are ineffective. Either they do not prevent adverse consequences to your relationship from the intentional and unwarranted actions of people, or the trade-offs simply aren't worth it. In general, countermeasures can fail in two completely different ways. The first way is that they can fail in the face of an attack. The door locks fail to keep your boyfriend inside, or your source in his company fails to feed you any information. These are passive failures: The countermeasure fails to take action when it should. A countermeasure can also fail by doing what it's supposed to do, but at the wrong time. The door locks keep you from entering your boyfriend’s house, or your source in his company feeds you false information. These are active failures: The countermeasure fails by taking action when it shouldn't.
In most of the cases, active failures are more frequent than passive failures. Countermeasures continually affect the normal functionality of your life, while they only occasionally affect attackers (other girls). This magnifies the effects of active failures, and the impact security systems have on the innocent. Countermeasures with passive failures are simply less effective: They only occasionally succeed in the face of an attack. Countermeasures with a relatively high rate of active failures are almost always more trouble than they're worth because of the high rate of false alarms.
Imagine a door lock that bars people from entering their own home. No matter how effective it is at stopping burglars, people would not tolerate it.
Nor would a faithful boyfriend who receives your location check every 30mins.
If it weren't for attacks, our lives would be a whole lot easier. In a world where every boyfriend was completely honorable and faithful all of the time, and every other girl would have no interest to sleep with your boyfriend, everything you bought and did would be cheaper. You wouldn't have to pay for Swiss door locks, for instance. There would be no countermeasures, because your boyfriend would never consider going where he was not supposed to go or doing what he was not allowed to do. You wouldn't have to check his emails, SMS messages, phone records, or ICQ history. You wouldn't have to call him every 30mins to locate his positions. You wouldn't have to modify your behavior based on risks of your relationship, because there would be none.
But that's not the world we live in. Security of love permeates everything you do and supports your life in innumerable ways. Thus, you constantly making countermeasures (or trade-offs, I will go into details later), whether you're conscious of them or not: large and small, personal and social. All the countermeasures are, in some way, about prevention. But prevention of what, exactly? It is about preventing adverse consequences to your relationship from the intentional and unwarranted actions of others. (Note that: it concerns itself with intentional actions. Protecting your boyfriend from car accidents is safety, not security.)
"Trade-off" really is the right word to describe the countermeasures. Every one of us, every day of our lives, makes security trade-offs. When you brush your teeth in the morning, you're making a security trade-off: the time spent brushing in exchange for a small amount of security against tooth decay. When you lock your boyfriend in a house, you're making a trade-off: the inconvenience of carrying and using a key in exchange for some security against other girls. You call him every 30mins, you check his emails and ICQ messages, all these things you do, you are exchanging something to protect your relationship.
Unfortunately, many countermeasures are ineffective. Either they do not prevent adverse consequences to your relationship from the intentional and unwarranted actions of people, or the trade-offs simply aren't worth it. In general, countermeasures can fail in two completely different ways. The first way is that they can fail in the face of an attack. The door locks fail to keep your boyfriend inside, or your source in his company fails to feed you any information. These are passive failures: The countermeasure fails to take action when it should. A countermeasure can also fail by doing what it's supposed to do, but at the wrong time. The door locks keep you from entering your boyfriend’s house, or your source in his company feeds you false information. These are active failures: The countermeasure fails by taking action when it shouldn't.
In most of the cases, active failures are more frequent than passive failures. Countermeasures continually affect the normal functionality of your life, while they only occasionally affect attackers (other girls). This magnifies the effects of active failures, and the impact security systems have on the innocent. Countermeasures with passive failures are simply less effective: They only occasionally succeed in the face of an attack. Countermeasures with a relatively high rate of active failures are almost always more trouble than they're worth because of the high rate of false alarms.
Imagine a door lock that bars people from entering their own home. No matter how effective it is at stopping burglars, people would not tolerate it.
Nor would a faithful boyfriend who receives your location check every 30mins.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Security of Love
I write this article partly to correct some mistakes. Everyone needs security of love, but most of the people don't understand the problems and they don't understand the way to secure their relationships.
If you hide your boyfriend somewhere in Tin Shui Wai, remove his cell phone and lock him in a house with the finest Swiss door locks, then tell other girls to seduce him. That is not security. That is obscurity. On the other hand, if you put your boyfriend in LKF, let him surrounds himself by a hundred hot girls, allow him to flirt with them – and they still cannot sleep with him – that is security.
If the invulnerability of your relationship relies on the fact that other girls have no chance to touch your boyfriend, you are sunk. If you believe that keeping your boyfriend in a secret place improves the security of your relationship more than letting other girls to know him, you are wrong. And if you think that doing this then someone will never get your boyfriend, you are naïve. The most secure boyfriends you have are the ones made public, that they have been seduced for years, and are still unbreakable.
Security of love is both a feeling and a reality. We are secure when we feel that our relationship is protected from harm, free from dangers, and safe from attack. In this way, security is merely a state of mind. But there is the reality of security as well. The reality has nothing do with how we feel. Our relationship is secure when it is actually being protected. We need to feel in control and positive and not harried and fearful for security to have much of a positive effect on our relationship. But it is nonetheless important to ground that feeling of security in the reality of security, and not merely in placebos.
In some ways, this is analogous to health. If you went to the doctor because you had a badly damaged leg, she would not pretend that she could return your leg to its undamaged state if she couldn't. She would tell you the truth, describe your treatment options, and help you choose the one that is best for you, Ignoring reality is not an effective way to get healthier, or smarter, or safer, even though it might temporarily make you feel better.
Feeling and reality often contradict each other. In statistics there are type I and type II errors. Type I error: You feel that your boyfriend is faithful when he actually is not. Type II error: You feel that your boyfriend is unfaithful when he actually doesn't do anything wrong. Ironically, most of your friends would tell you to be careful of type I error, which causes you to make type II error as a consequence, and ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
To be continued...
If you hide your boyfriend somewhere in Tin Shui Wai, remove his cell phone and lock him in a house with the finest Swiss door locks, then tell other girls to seduce him. That is not security. That is obscurity. On the other hand, if you put your boyfriend in LKF, let him surrounds himself by a hundred hot girls, allow him to flirt with them – and they still cannot sleep with him – that is security.
If the invulnerability of your relationship relies on the fact that other girls have no chance to touch your boyfriend, you are sunk. If you believe that keeping your boyfriend in a secret place improves the security of your relationship more than letting other girls to know him, you are wrong. And if you think that doing this then someone will never get your boyfriend, you are naïve. The most secure boyfriends you have are the ones made public, that they have been seduced for years, and are still unbreakable.
Security of love is both a feeling and a reality. We are secure when we feel that our relationship is protected from harm, free from dangers, and safe from attack. In this way, security is merely a state of mind. But there is the reality of security as well. The reality has nothing do with how we feel. Our relationship is secure when it is actually being protected. We need to feel in control and positive and not harried and fearful for security to have much of a positive effect on our relationship. But it is nonetheless important to ground that feeling of security in the reality of security, and not merely in placebos.
In some ways, this is analogous to health. If you went to the doctor because you had a badly damaged leg, she would not pretend that she could return your leg to its undamaged state if she couldn't. She would tell you the truth, describe your treatment options, and help you choose the one that is best for you, Ignoring reality is not an effective way to get healthier, or smarter, or safer, even though it might temporarily make you feel better.
Feeling and reality often contradict each other. In statistics there are type I and type II errors. Type I error: You feel that your boyfriend is faithful when he actually is not. Type II error: You feel that your boyfriend is unfaithful when he actually doesn't do anything wrong. Ironically, most of your friends would tell you to be careful of type I error, which causes you to make type II error as a consequence, and ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
To be continued...
Thursday, October 13, 2005
I am the vampire of my own heart
The memory of the day of destiny is like the eternal torture of the burning Abyss. It was the day that I was choosing the accomodation in a cafe, before boarding on a ferry.
Remember...remember the sight we saw, my soul? that beautiful soft summer morning...round a turning in the path...a disgusting carcass on a bed scattered with stones, its legs in the air like a woman in heat...burning and sweating poisons...like a fountain with its rhythmical sobs.
I can hear it clearly flowing with a long, murmuring sound, but I touch my body in vain to find the wound...I am the vampire of my own heart. One of the great outcasts condemned to eternal laughter, who can no longer smile...
Am I dead? No.
One day or another, I will end such disgusting journey myself once and for all.
Remember...remember the sight we saw, my soul? that beautiful soft summer morning...round a turning in the path...a disgusting carcass on a bed scattered with stones, its legs in the air like a woman in heat...burning and sweating poisons...like a fountain with its rhythmical sobs.
I can hear it clearly flowing with a long, murmuring sound, but I touch my body in vain to find the wound...I am the vampire of my own heart. One of the great outcasts condemned to eternal laughter, who can no longer smile...
Am I dead? No.
One day or another, I will end such disgusting journey myself once and for all.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Distant Worlds
Sitting by in the evening sand—
Twilight, the song of peace;
Clouds dance up with the heavens' stars,
Chanting the name of joyous bliss.
Water fades back from wood to jade,
Gliding on rainbows high;
Flowers bloom into brazen whites,
Reaching our hearts when they're entwined.
Angels chained by a beast locked in slumber;
Sin washed away by the swift flow of time.
I may know the answers,
Though one question I still hear:
What twisted fate has brought us
To worlds that run so near?
Distant worlds together,
Nearer 'cause when once we are,
When I find words inside me
To sing to you this song—
To sing with you this song;
To sing to you, your song.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Lover's Dilemma
1. Introduction
John Louis von Neumann was a mathematician who got a first degree in chemistry and yet wrote a book on quantum physics and participated in the development of hydrogen bomb, though his most significant contribution in history was of computer science. This paper, however, is about his idea that revolutionized economics [1][2].
Von Neumann once thought that the Cold War was just a simple two person game [3]. That is, the total benefit to the US and USSR in this game, for every combination of strategies, always adds to zero. More specifically, one side benefits only at the expense of the other. (He was wrong in some sense. It was actually a non-zero-sum game that neither side dared to push the button and eventually achieved a win-win situation)
"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is."
-- John Louis von Neumann
As a scholar, I spent almost 10 years researching the economical behavior of love. I was surprised to discover that the game of love itself is actually economics; and it is not about paying dinner or buying LV for your girlfriends. I thus write this paper as a conclusion of my 10 year research work and present the concepts of the Lover's Dilemma.
Love is a simple two person game. In this game, as in chess or many others, it is assumed that each individual player is trying to maximize his or her own advantage, without concern for the well-being of the other player. The equilibrium for this type of game does not lead to optimums. Even though they may cooperate to achieve a better overall result of the game, they would still choose to act individually. This is the heart of the dilemma.
2. The Dilemma
The Lover's Dilemma is as follows: The lovers, A and B, are in a trouble relationship. It is not necessary to assume that both players in this game are completely selfish and that their only goal is to maximize their own satisfaction. They want the relationship continues without losing their personal pride and emotional dignity. One may ask for break-up, strategically, and thus showing one-sided influence towards the relationship. Nevertheless, such request might end up being fulfilled and they would lose their lover.
Table 1: The Lover's Dilemma in "Win-Win" Terminology
It can be summarized thus: If one asks for break-up and the other begs for continuing the relationship, the beggar loses his pride but is able to get back to his lover. If both agree to continue, they stay together still but lose the chance of showing one-sided influence towards each other. If they both ask for break-up, the relationship ends but they can still maintain their pride and dignity. To most of the players, self satisfaction is more important than the relationship itself. Therefore being a beggar is the worst case which they would try very hard to avoid.
3. Discussion
It is not difficult to realize that this is a non-zero-sum two person game. Specifically, a gain by one player does not necessarily correspond with a loss by another. If only they could both agree to continue the relationship, they would both be better off; however, from a game theorist's point of view, their best play is to request break-up. I am going to discuss the details in this section.
Each player has two options. The outcome of each choice depends on the choice of the other player. However, neither player knows the choice of his or her lover. Even if they were able to talk to each other, neither could be sure that they could trust the other. Assuming the player A is rationally working out his best move. If his partner wants to continue, according to the above table, his best move is to make a strategical break-up request as he then is able to achieve maximum advantage instead of actually ending the relationship. If his partner asks for break-up, his best move is still to break up, as by doing so he receives a relatively better situation than being a beggar. At the same time, player B thinking rationally would also have arrived at the same conclusion and therefore will request for break-up. Thus in a game of love played once by two rational players both will request for ending the relationship.
If reasoned from the perspective of the optimal interest of the group of the couple, the correct outcome would be for both players to continue their relationship, as this would minimize total lost of the group. Any other decision would be worse for the two lovers considered together. However by each following their selfish interests, the players each receive a bad result.
4. Conclusions
If only a player could sacrifice the personal pride and emotional dignity for his or her lover, if only each of them could be sure that the other player would make the same sacrifice, if only they could concern each others, they would both agree to continue their relationship and achieve a better overall result. However, such a sacrifice cannot exist, as it is vulnerable to the treachery of selfish individuals, which we assumed our players to be. Therein lays the true beauty and the maddening paradox of this game of love.
Von Neumann once said: "If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is." I realized, through mathematics, that life is fairly simple, too. At least to many people, the game of love itself is actually as simple as school level calculation.
5. Future Work
I am currently working on the Iterated Lover's Dilemma which means that the game is played repeatedly. Thus each player has an opportunity to "punish" the other player for previous selfish play. Mutual cooperation in the game may then arise as an equilibrium outcome. The incentive to be selfish may then overcome by the threat of punishment, leading to the possibility of a cooperative outcome.
6. Acknowledgements
This work is with help of many people. In particular, I would like to express my greatest gratitude towards my ex girlfriends. Without the invaluable lessons they taught me, this paper would not have been possible. Through the rest of my days, I shall remember their support with greatest appreciation.
7. References
[1] J. von Neumann, "Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele", Mathematicsche Annalen, Vol. 100, No. 1, Pages 295-320, 1928
[2] J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior", Princeton University Press, 1944
[3] W. Poundstone, "Prisoner's Dilemma: John Von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of the Bomb", Anchor Books, 1993
John Louis von Neumann was a mathematician who got a first degree in chemistry and yet wrote a book on quantum physics and participated in the development of hydrogen bomb, though his most significant contribution in history was of computer science. This paper, however, is about his idea that revolutionized economics [1][2].
Von Neumann once thought that the Cold War was just a simple two person game [3]. That is, the total benefit to the US and USSR in this game, for every combination of strategies, always adds to zero. More specifically, one side benefits only at the expense of the other. (He was wrong in some sense. It was actually a non-zero-sum game that neither side dared to push the button and eventually achieved a win-win situation)
"If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is."
-- John Louis von Neumann
As a scholar, I spent almost 10 years researching the economical behavior of love. I was surprised to discover that the game of love itself is actually economics; and it is not about paying dinner or buying LV for your girlfriends. I thus write this paper as a conclusion of my 10 year research work and present the concepts of the Lover's Dilemma.
Love is a simple two person game. In this game, as in chess or many others, it is assumed that each individual player is trying to maximize his or her own advantage, without concern for the well-being of the other player. The equilibrium for this type of game does not lead to optimums. Even though they may cooperate to achieve a better overall result of the game, they would still choose to act individually. This is the heart of the dilemma.
2. The Dilemma
The Lover's Dilemma is as follows: The lovers, A and B, are in a trouble relationship. It is not necessary to assume that both players in this game are completely selfish and that their only goal is to maximize their own satisfaction. They want the relationship continues without losing their personal pride and emotional dignity. One may ask for break-up, strategically, and thus showing one-sided influence towards the relationship. Nevertheless, such request might end up being fulfilled and they would lose their lover.
Table 1: The Lover's Dilemma in "Win-Win" Terminology
It can be summarized thus: If one asks for break-up and the other begs for continuing the relationship, the beggar loses his pride but is able to get back to his lover. If both agree to continue, they stay together still but lose the chance of showing one-sided influence towards each other. If they both ask for break-up, the relationship ends but they can still maintain their pride and dignity. To most of the players, self satisfaction is more important than the relationship itself. Therefore being a beggar is the worst case which they would try very hard to avoid.
3. Discussion
It is not difficult to realize that this is a non-zero-sum two person game. Specifically, a gain by one player does not necessarily correspond with a loss by another. If only they could both agree to continue the relationship, they would both be better off; however, from a game theorist's point of view, their best play is to request break-up. I am going to discuss the details in this section.
Each player has two options. The outcome of each choice depends on the choice of the other player. However, neither player knows the choice of his or her lover. Even if they were able to talk to each other, neither could be sure that they could trust the other. Assuming the player A is rationally working out his best move. If his partner wants to continue, according to the above table, his best move is to make a strategical break-up request as he then is able to achieve maximum advantage instead of actually ending the relationship. If his partner asks for break-up, his best move is still to break up, as by doing so he receives a relatively better situation than being a beggar. At the same time, player B thinking rationally would also have arrived at the same conclusion and therefore will request for break-up. Thus in a game of love played once by two rational players both will request for ending the relationship.
If reasoned from the perspective of the optimal interest of the group of the couple, the correct outcome would be for both players to continue their relationship, as this would minimize total lost of the group. Any other decision would be worse for the two lovers considered together. However by each following their selfish interests, the players each receive a bad result.
4. Conclusions
If only a player could sacrifice the personal pride and emotional dignity for his or her lover, if only each of them could be sure that the other player would make the same sacrifice, if only they could concern each others, they would both agree to continue their relationship and achieve a better overall result. However, such a sacrifice cannot exist, as it is vulnerable to the treachery of selfish individuals, which we assumed our players to be. Therein lays the true beauty and the maddening paradox of this game of love.
Von Neumann once said: "If people do not believe that mathematics is simple, it is only because they do not realize how complicated life is." I realized, through mathematics, that life is fairly simple, too. At least to many people, the game of love itself is actually as simple as school level calculation.
5. Future Work
I am currently working on the Iterated Lover's Dilemma which means that the game is played repeatedly. Thus each player has an opportunity to "punish" the other player for previous selfish play. Mutual cooperation in the game may then arise as an equilibrium outcome. The incentive to be selfish may then overcome by the threat of punishment, leading to the possibility of a cooperative outcome.
6. Acknowledgements
This work is with help of many people. In particular, I would like to express my greatest gratitude towards my ex girlfriends. Without the invaluable lessons they taught me, this paper would not have been possible. Through the rest of my days, I shall remember their support with greatest appreciation.
7. References
[1] J. von Neumann, "Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele", Mathematicsche Annalen, Vol. 100, No. 1, Pages 295-320, 1928
[2] J. von Neumann and O. Morgenstern, "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior", Princeton University Press, 1944
[3] W. Poundstone, "Prisoner's Dilemma: John Von Neumann, Game Theory and the Puzzle of the Bomb", Anchor Books, 1993
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Dear Osama
They priced 25 million USD on your head so the terror will stop. Well I wouldn't know about that I mean rock & roll didn't stop when Elvis died yet things just got worse.
Don't lose sleep on my account Osama, I won't turn you in since I don't know how to spend 25 million USD. But after you blew up London, things just got a bit different here. Though London is not a very nice place in a lot of ways, I have been living there for a long period of time. You know, when you blew London up, it has become something personal here. Well you have nothing to worry about since I really won't turn you in, instead, I will do things in my own way.
In the way that you will never want to know.
Don't lose sleep on my account Osama, I won't turn you in since I don't know how to spend 25 million USD. But after you blew up London, things just got a bit different here. Though London is not a very nice place in a lot of ways, I have been living there for a long period of time. You know, when you blew London up, it has become something personal here. Well you have nothing to worry about since I really won't turn you in, instead, I will do things in my own way.
In the way that you will never want to know.
The school girl
I never thought I would meet her again. I mean if it has not been my old computer, or we didn't come back HK, our path may never cross again. It has been four years, or five, since the last time that we got together. I still remember the morning when she slept on my shoulder, I dared not move an inch for afraid of waking her up. Many years have passed since then, and she has become a nice lady.
Some things never change, and some things do.
Some things never change, and some things do.
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Walk on, folks! Walk on!
A nice holiday again.
It was the day we were heading towards a glorious summer like the ones we had in the last few years. It was the day that most of the people were busy to make plans for spending their useless time. It was also the day when they were going boat trips, driving Skylines, messing in love affairs, fucking girls, watching AVs, clubbing in LKF or shopping in Langham like crazy. But there exists some people, who have decided to do things a bit differently. They chose to walk through the land of darkness and despair. They walked forth with knowledge that their efforts may well be in vain, despite what others might think, that no one would sing silver songs for them. Yet they walked still, with their heads holding up high. No matter how bitter the day might seem, neither rain, nor storm, nor extreme heat can truly keep them from walking, like no others, with hope and love in their hearts.
They sang the sweet silver songs themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
“When you walk through a storm
hold your head up high
And don’t be afraid of the dark.
At the end of a storm is a golden sky
And the sweet silver song of a lark.
Walk on through the wing,
Walk on through the rain,
Tho’ your dreams be tossed and blown.
Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
And you’ll never walk alone,
You’ll never, ever walk alone.
Walk on, walk on with hope in your heart
And you’ll never walk alone,
You’ll never, ever walk alone.”
-- R. Rodgers and O. Hammerstein II, Musical Carousel, 1956
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Road to Monterey
It is a small town with just some 30,000 residents, located on a peninsula two and a half hours south of San Francisco, California. It has been called the greatest meeting of land, sea and sky and is recognized as an ideal vacation destination. Its world class golf courses, unique variety of shops and galleries and a spectacular assortment of parks and natural areas combine to provide a truly unrivalled place for upper-class inhabitants. Monterey, though a few of you may know, is also the Jerusalem of the virtual reality research community.
The Modelling and Simulation Institute of the Naval Postgraduate School at Monterey has been an internationally respected centre of teaching and research in VR since it was established. It provides a fertile setting for research that has spawned a host of scientific breakthroughs and technological advances. It is, however, the place that I would never be allowed to study for it only accepts students who are military officers from Uncle Sam or his friends. As most of you may know, that neither I have a military background nor is my country quite friendly to him. Nevertheless, it is the place where I am going in this winter. I am not going there as a mere pilgrim. I am not going to smell their advance or taste their success. I, NJ the Owl, BSc, MPhil, MCS, CITP, MBCS, MIEEE, although without a PhD, am going to present a paper there. I am going there to tell the Americans something new, something that no one on this planet has ever done before. This is the true meaning of what fideles Sancti Petri or milites Christi saw themselves as undertaking an iter.
Well. Aftermath.
“……Frederick drowned in Cilicia where most of what remained of the Germans was killed off by a bout of Black Plague, leaving only the English and the French. Philip left the alliance after they arrived Acre. Richard and his men headed down the coast of the Mediterranean Sea and were once in the sight of the holy land. But Saladin poisoned the wells and destroyed the crops which made Richard decided to retreat in the following year. On his way home his ship was wrecked leading him to Austria."
---- P.M. Holt, The Near East from the Eleventh Century, 1986
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Friday, April 22, 2005
El Derby de Italia
Bianconeri 0 – 1 Nerazzurri
"Winning the Derby de Italia at Turin was not enough to keep the Nerazzurri from losing Lo Scudetto 16 times in a row."
-- NJ, tifoso di Internazionale, 22nd April 2005
"Winning the Derby de Italia at Turin was not enough to keep the Nerazzurri from losing Lo Scudetto 16 times in a row."
-- NJ, tifoso di Internazionale, 22nd April 2005
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Everything has a beginning has an end
So this is the beginning, I guess.
Welcome aboard, ladies and gentlemen. This journey is to walk a life's path with an owl through its screeches. You don't have to fasten your seatbelt or check your lifebuoy. No rule is required in this blog but I have to give you an advice before you start, that you should better abandon your logic here. Owls are not rational thinking birds, nor are they logical. They raise alarm when there is no threat, they protect themselves when there is no attacker, they are predators but they are often harassed by smaller birds. You would better save your logic when you hang around with them.
Almost 10 years ago I have constructed my first and also my last personal homepage for a girl. I expressd my feeling on her through the homepage everyday for which many people have visited it at the time. She never had the chance to come however, because I had never given her the link till the fall of the site.
Sooner or later this will come to an end, too. Because logically everything has a beginning has an end. However, since you came here, you have already abandoned your logic to have faith in me therefore it takes illogical thinking to believe that this can ever be here and never end. At least the day is not today.
Nor is it tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
