Equations 3, 4 double checked. Style questions

[stevekochscience]

I double checked Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 now that I understood the game. Neither one is complicated, of course, but wondering about style: IF someone wanted to read the relations without looking at the graphs. I don't think this is a big deal, since the graphs show the important information. As an example, I first came up with this for EQ 3:

I don't have a strong opinion. The alternative came when I wrote out the simple sum. It's easier to see the behavior as mu gets large. But has a stranger factor like (FD -1).

Thoughts?

[stevekochscience]

Importantly, though, I got same answer for Eq 3 and 4

[olendorf]

I struggle with this too. Can you try to rework it and we can just choose
the best options?

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Steve Koch [email protected]:

I double checked Eq. 3 and Eq. 4 now that I understood the game. Neither
one is complicated, of course, but wondering about style: IF someone wanted
to read the relations without looking at the graphs. I don't think this is
a big deal, since the graphs show the important information. As an example,
I first came up with this for EQ 3:

[image: img_20131021_092330]https://f.cloud.github.com/assets/841583/1373637/e6dd39d8-3a64-11e3-821c-19740120d65e.JPG

I don't have a strong opinion. The alternative came when I wrote out the
simple sum. It's easier to see the behavior as mu gets large. But has a
stranger factor like (FD -1).

Thoughts?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/10
.

[olendorf]

I think the Fd-1 is wrong. Fd is the frequency of defectors. With two strategies (ie. D and C) then 1-Fd = Fc ( the frequency of cooperators). With three (D, C and TFT) we have to keep track of two frequencies 1 - Fd - Ftft = Fc. There is an error somewhere I"m sure. Did I screw it up? If so, we need to check the simulation code.

[olendorf]

We need to verify the equations, verify the simulation code then close yes? I can do this.