Okay, this is from Scola's post:
Two suspects, A and B, are arrested by the police. The police have insufficient evidence for a conviction, and, having separated both prisoners, visit each of them to offer the same deal: if one testifies for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent, the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must make the choice of whether to betray the other or to remain silent. However, neither prisoner knows for sure what choice the other prisoner will make. So this dilemma poses the question: How should the prisoners act?
If I recall correctly, this is a game theory example and one of the basic concepts of game theory is that every "player" acts almost exclusively in his own self-interest. The most common outcome, then, is that each would receive a five-year sentence, as both have striven to get the freedom promised by betrayal.
The ideal outcome is that they each receive the six-month sentence for remaining silent, as that is the outcome dictated by every player acting in concert according to enlightened self-interest; i.e. what is the best achievable goal for ALL players, not just the individual.
I think.
"Selling a long prison term, to someone uninterested in the product."
Oh. Well, I was basing my confusion on the original description of it, which said that if you both keep quiet, you both walk:
Oh yeah, I should have mentioned earlier that was not the way I understand it....
Frank can make you say anything.
Why didn't somebody tell me?
Frank made us not tell you.
Ephesians, those are the guys that always lie. Unless I am being wrong again.
Are you thinking of Epimenides Paradox?
You are totally right, MM. I garbled it all up. But the cartel thing is right.
Eta: yes, Laga, I must be. I'm going to take my wrong-remembering full-of-wrong information brain out to lunch, now, before I mislead again.
"crime makes you stupid."
The Prisoner's Dilemma can be solved under Tit for Tat under one condition, which is multiple trials.
In that you have just one run through, one time you answer the question, but that you (and you're fellow prisoner) are repeatedly asked questions, and you are told after each decision what your current prison sentence is, and so you knew whether your fellow prisoner has informed on you or not. It also assumes that the your information is true (no police lying.)
It's a logical representation of the problem of long-term interaction. Why do people cooperate as compared to screwing each other every chance they get. The id/super-ego, cooperative/competitive axis of human interaction.
So the prisoners know up front what will happen if they talk or don't talk?
