When Kim Il-Jong recently visited Moscow on a surreal train journey, he proudly informed Vladimir Putin he was travelling in the armoured train given to his father as a present by Stalin. As analysts of the regime agree, this merely illustrates the extraordinary, reverential detail with which Kim and his founding father Kim Il-Sung have maintained a complete Stalinist state into the 21st century: In both North Korea and Iraq, the absolute political control of a tiny oligarchy, the propaganda state, economic centralisation, the interlocking labyrinth of security forces, and the preposterous cult of personality are self-consciously Stalinist
For reasons to be discussed later, limitations in their mathematical framework initially made the theory applicable only under special and limited conditions. This situation has dramatically changed, in ways we will examine as we go along, over the past six decades, as the framework has been deepened and generalized.
Refinements are still being made, and we will review a few outstanding problems that lie along the advancing front edge of these developments towards the end of the article. However, since at least the late s it has been possible to say with confidence that game theory is the most important and useful tool in the analyst's kit whenever she confronts situations in which what counts as one agent's best action for her depends on expectations about what one or more other agents will do, and what counts as their best actions for them similarly depend on expectations about her.
Despite the fact that game theory has been rendered mathematically and logically systematic only sincegame-theoretic insights can be found among commentators going back to ancient times. For example, in two of Plato's texts, the Laches and the Symposium, Socrates recalls an episode from the Battle of Delium that some commentators have interpreted probably anachronistically as involving the following situation.
Consider a soldier at the front, waiting with his comrades to repulse an enemy attack. It may occur to him that if the defense is likely to be successful, then it isn't very probable that his own personal contribution will be essential.
But if he stays, he runs the risk of being killed or wounded—apparently for no point. On the other hand, if the enemy is going to win the battle, then his chances of death or injury are higher still, and now quite clearly to no point, since the line will be overwhelmed anyway.
Based on this reasoning, it would appear that the soldier is better off running away regardless of who is going to win the battle.
|Legal background||Asking questions for science and defining problems for engineering 2.|
|Communication is important in developing positive relationships Essay Sample||Grades K-5 Mississauga, Ontario Canada When I do classroom walk-throughs I am looking for best practices determined by a reflective question that focuses on a practice or strategy our staff has determined to be a priority. The process is an informal and non-evaluative one; its purpose is to foster reflective practice.|
|Walk-Throughs Are On the Move! | Education World||Offences committed on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany German criminal law shall apply to acts committed on German territory.|
|Blog Archive||To explain the legal duties owed by teachers and school staff towards students.|
Of course, if all of the soldiers reason this way—as they all apparently should, since they're all in identical situations—then this will certainly bring about the outcome in which the battle is lost. Of course, this point, since it has occurred to us as analysts, can occur to the soldiers too.
Does this give them a reason for staying at their posts? And the greater the soldiers' belief that the battle will be won, without the need of any particular individual's contributions, the less reason they have to stay and fight. If each soldier anticipates this sort of reasoning on the part of the others, all will quickly reason themselves into a panic, and their horrified commander will have a rout on his hands before the enemy has fired a shot.
Long before game theory had come along to show analysts how to think about this sort of problem systematically, it had occurred to some actual military leaders and influenced their strategies. Thus the Spanish conqueror Cortez, when landing in Mexico with a small force who had good reason to fear their capacity to repel attack from the far more numerous Aztecs, removed the risk that his troops might think their way into a retreat by burning the ships on which they had landed.
With retreat having thus been rendered physically impossible, the Spanish soldiers had no better course of action but to stand and fight—and, furthermore, to fight with as much determination as they could muster.
Better still, from Cortez's point of view, his action had a discouraging effect on the motivation of the Aztecs. He took care to burn his ships very visibly, so that the Aztecs would be sure to see what he had done.
They then reasoned as follows: Any commander who could be so confident as to willfully destroy his own option to be prudent if the battle went badly for him must have good reasons for such extreme optimism.
It cannot be wise to attack an opponent who has a good reason whatever, exactly, it might be for being sure that he can't lose.
The Aztecs therefore retreated into the surrounding hills, and Cortez had his victory bloodlessly. These two situations, at Delium and as manipulated by Cortez, have a common and interesting underlying logic.
Notice that the soldiers are not motivated to retreat just, or even mainly, by their rational assessment of the dangers of battle and by their self-interest. Rather, they discover a sound reason to run away by realizing that what it makes sense for them to do depends on what it will make sense for others to do, and that all of the others can notice this too.WHY CAN'T DICTATORS ASPIRE TO BE LIKE MUSSOLINI?: A fascinating FT op-ed on what Kim Jong-Il and Saddam Hussein have in common: "On the 50th anniversary of his death, the two paramount threats to world peace today, Saddam Hussein and President Kim Il-Jong of North Korea, openly base themselves and their regimes on Stalin.
Walk-Throughs Are On the Move. Classroom walk-throughs are a trend that is on the move! The non-threatening, non-evaluative walk-throughs give principals a quick snapshot of student learning. Purpose of this policy. To explain the legal duties owed by teachers and school staff towards students.
Legal background “Duty of care” is an element of the tort of negligence. , Explain the Principals of Relationship Building with Children, Young People and Adults More about Tda Explain the Importance of Promoting the Rights of All Children and Young People to Participation and Equality of Access.
TDA Promote Equality, diversity and inclusion in work with children and young people. Explain why effective communication is important in developing positive relationship with children, young people and adults.
Forming and maintaining positive relationships within a school setting is of great importance. 3. Dimension 1 SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING PRACTICES. F rom its inception, one of the principal goals of science education has been to cultivate students’ scientific habits of mind, develop their capability to engage in scientific inquiry, and teach them how to reason in a scientific context [1, 2].There has always been a tension, however, between the emphasis that should be placed on.