Statistical Tools III: Cards

"In short, absolute, so-called mathematical factors never find a firm basis in military calculations. From the very start there is an interplay of possibilities, probabilities, good luck and bad that weaves its way throughout the length and breadth of the tapestry. In the whole range the human activities war most closely resembles a game of cards." (Carl von Clausewitz, "On War", 1832)

"The law of large numbers is noted in events which are attributed to pure chance since we do not know their causes or because they are too complicated. Thus, games, in which the circumstances determining the occurrence of a certain card or certain number of points on a die infinitely vary, can not be subjected to any calculus. If the series of trials is continued for a long time, the different outcomes nevertheless appear in constant ratios. Then, if calculations according to the rules of a game are possible, the respective probabilities of eventual outcomes conform to the known Jakob Bernoulli theorem. However, in most problems of contingency a prior determination of chances of the various events is impossible and, on the contrary, they are calculated from the observed result." (Siméon-Denis Poisson, "Researches into the Probabilities of Judgements in Criminal and Civil Cases", 1837)

"As an instrument for selecting at random, I have found nothing superior to dice. It is most tedious to shuffle cards thoroughly be- tween each successive draw, and the method of mixing and stirring up marked balls in a bag is more tedious still. A teetotum or some form of roulette is preferable to these, but dice are better than all. When they are shaken and tossed in a basket, they hurtle so variously against one another and against the ribs of the basket-work that they tumble wildly about, and their positions at the outset afford no perceptible clue to what they will be after even a single good shake and toss." (Francis Galton, Nature vol. 42, 1890) 

"Scientific facts accumulate rapidly, and give rise to theories with almost equal rapidity. These theories are often wonderfully enticing, and one is apt to pass from one to another, from theory to theory, without taking care to establish each before passing on to the next, without assuring oneself that the foundation on which one is building is secure. Then comes the crash; the last theory breaks down utterly, and on attempting to retrace our steps to firm ground and start anew, we may find too late that one of the cards, possibly at the very foundation of the pagoda, is either faultily placed or in itself defective, and that this blemish easily remedied if detected in time has, neglected, caused the collapse of the whole structure on whose erection so much skill and perseverance have been spent." (Arthur M Marshall, 1894)

"If you take a pack of cards as it comes from the maker and shuffle it for a few minutes, all trace of the original systematic order disappears. The order will never come back however long you shuffle. Something has been done which cannot be undone, namely, the introduction of a random element in place of the arrangement." (Sir Arthur S Eddington, "The Nature of the Physical World", 1928)

"It seems hard to sneak a look at God's cards. But that He plays dice and uses 'telepathic' methods [...] is something that I cannot believe for a single moment." (Albert Einstein, [Letter to Cornel Lanczos] 1942)

"We must emphasize that such terms as 'select at random', 'choose at random', and the like, always mean that some mechanical device, such as coins, cards, dice, or tables of random numbers, is used." (Frederick Mosteller et al, "Principles of Sampling", Journal of the American Statistical Association Vol. 49 (265), 1954)

"A thorough understanding of game theory, should dim these greedy hopes. Knowledge of game theory does not make one a better card player, businessman or military strategist." (Anatol Rapoport, "The Use and Misuse of Game Theory," 1962)

"Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you represents determinism. The way you play it is free will." (Jawaharlal Nehru, Saturday Review, 1967)

"There may be such a thing as habitual luck. People who are said to be lucky at cards probably have certain hidden talents for those games in which skill plays a role. It is like hidden parameters in physics, this ability that does not surface and that I like to call 'habitual luck'." (Stanislaw Ulam, "Adventures of a Mathematician", 1976)

"Gambling was the place where statistics and profound human consequences met most nakedly, after all, and cards, even more than dice or the numbers on a roulette wheel, seemed able to define and perhaps even dictate a player's... luck." (Tim Powers, "Last Call", 1992)

"An example, which, like tossing a coin, is intimately associated with games of chance, is the shuffling of a deck of cards. […] the process is not completely random, if by what happens next we mean the outcome of the next single riffle, since one riffle cannot change any given order of the cards in the deck to any other given order. In particular, a single riffle cannot completely reverse the order of the cards, although a sufficient number of successive riffles, of course, can produce any order." (Edward N Lorenz, "The Essence of Chaos", 1993)

"Whether we shuffle cards or roll dice, chance is only a result of our human lack of deftness: we don't have enough control to immobilize a die at will or to individually direct the cards in a deck. The comparison is an important one nonetheless, and highlights the limits of this method of creating chance - it doesn't matter who rolls the dice, but we wouldn't let just anyone shuffle the cards." (Ivar Ekeland, "The Broken Dice, and Other Mathematical Tales of Chance", 1993)

"For several centuries that we know of, and probably for many centuries before that, flipping a coin (or rolling a die) has been the epitome of probability, the paradigm of randomness. You flip the coin (or roll the die), and nobody can accurately predict how it will fall. Nor can the most powerful computer predict correctly how it will fall, if it is flipped energetically enough. This is why cards, dice, and other gambling aids crop up so often in literature both directly and as metaphors. No doubt it is also the reason for the (perhaps excessive) popularity of gambling as entertainment. If anyone had any idea what numbers the lottery would show, or where the roulette ball will land, the whole industry would be a dead duck." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"We cannot really have a perfectly shuffled pack of perfect cards; this ‘collection of equally likely hands’ is actually a fiction. We create the idea, and then use the rules of arithmetic to calculate the required chances. This is characteristic of all mathematics, which concerns itself only with rules defining the behaviour of entities which are themselves undefined (such as ‘numbers’ or ‘points’)." (David Stirzaker, "Probability and Random Variables: A Beginner’s Guide", 1999)

"To look at the development of physics since Newton is to observe a struggle to define the limits of science. Part of this process has been the intrusion of scientific methods and ideas into domains that have traditionally been the province of metaphysics or religion. In this conflict, Hawking’s phrase ‘to know the Mind of God’ is just one example of a border infringement. But by playing the God card, Hawking has cleverly fanned the flames of his own publicity, appealing directly to the popular allure of the scientist-as-priest." (Peter Coles, "Hawking and the Mind of God", 2000)

"In contrast, the system may be a pack of cards, and the dynamic may be to shuffle the pack and then take the top card. Imagine that the current top card is the ace of spades, and that after shuffling the pack the top card becomes the seven of diamonds. Does that imply that whenever the top card is the ace of spades then the next top card will always be the seven of diamonds? Of course not. So this system is random."(Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"In modelling terms, the difference between randomness and determinacy is clear enough. The randomness in the pack of cards arises from our failure to prescribe unique rules for getting from the current state to the next one. There are lots of different ways to shuffle a pack. The determinism of the cannonball is a combination of two things: fully prescribed rules of behaviour, and fully defined initial conditions. Notice that in both systems we are thinking on a very short timescale: it is the next state that matters - or, if time is flowing continuously, it is the state a tiny instant into the future. We don't need to consider long-term behaviour to distinguish randomness from determinacy."(Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"The randomness of the card-shuffle is of course caused by our lack of knowledge of the precise procedure used to shuffle the cards. But that is outside the chosen system, so in our practical sense it is not admissible. If we were to change the system to include information about the shuffling rule – for example, that it is given by some particular computer code for pseudo-random numbers, starting with a given ‘seed value’ – then the system would look deterministic. Two computers of the same make running the same ‘random shuffle’ program would actually produce the identical sequence of top cards."(Ian Stewart, "Does God Play Dice: The New Mathematics of Chaos", 2002)

"Players must accept the cards dealt to them. However, once they have those cards in hand, they alone choose how they will play them. They decide what risks and actions to take." (John C Maxwell, "The Difference Maker: Making Your Attitude Your Greatest Asset", 2006)

"It's a game of a million inferences. There are a lot of things to draw inferences from - cards played and not played. These inferences tell you something about the probabilities. It's got to be the best intellectual exercise out there. You're seeing through new situations every ten minutes. Bridge is about weighing gain/loss ratios. You're doing calculations all the time." (Warren Buffett)

"The card-player begins by arranging his hand for maximum sense. Scientists do the same with the facts they gather." (Isaac Asimov)

On Self-Organization IV

"Every system of whatever size must maintain its own structure and must deal with a dynamic environment, i.e., the system must strike a proper balance between stability and change. The cybernetic mechanisms for stability (i.e., homeostasis, negative feedback, autopoiesis, equifinality) and change (i.e., positive feedback, algedonodes, self-organization) are found in all viable systems." (Barry Clemson, "Cybernetics: A New Management Tool", 1984)

"Autopoietic systems, then, are not only self-organizing systems, they not only produce and eventually change their own structures; their self-reference applies to the production of other components as well. This is the decisive conceptual innovation. […] Thus, everything that is used as a unit by the system is produced as a unit by the system itself. This applies to elements, processes, boundaries, and other structures and, last but not least, to the unity of the system itself." (Niklas Luhmann, "The Autopoiesis of Social Systems", 1990)

"The cybernetics phase of cognitive science produced an amazing array of concrete results, in addition to its long-term (often underground) influence: the use of mathematical logic to understand the operation of the nervous system; the invention of information processing machines (as digital computers), thus laying the basis for artificial intelligence; the establishment of the metadiscipline of system theory, which has had an imprint in many branches of science, such as engineering (systems analysis, control theory), biology (regulatory physiology, ecology), social sciences (family therapy, structural anthropology, management, urban studies), and economics (game theory); information theory as a statistical theory of signal and communication channels; the first examples of self-organizing systems. This list is impressive: we tend to consider many of these notions and tools an integrative part of our life […]" (Francisco Varela, "The Embodied Mind", 1991)

"Through self-organization, the behavior of the group emerges from the collective interactions of all the individuals. In fact, a major recurring theme in swarm intelligence (and of complexity science in general) is that even if individuals follow simple rules, the resulting group behavior can be surprisingly complex - and remarkably effective. And, to a large extent, flexibility and robustness result from self-organization." (Eric Bonabeau & Christopher Meyer, "Swarm Intelligence: A Whole New Way to Think About Business", Harvard Business Review, 2001)

"[…] swarm intelligence is becoming a valuable tool for optimizing the operations of various businesses. Whether similar gains will be made in helping companies better organize themselves and develop more effective strategies remains to be seen. At the very least, though, the field provides a fresh new framework for solving such problems, and it questions the wisdom of certain assumptions regarding the need for employee supervision through command-and-control management. In the future, some companies could build their entire businesses from the ground up using the principles of swarm intelligence, integrating the approach throughout their operations, organization, and strategy. The result: the ultimate self-organizing enterprise that could adapt quickly - and instinctively - to fast-changing markets." (Eric Bonabeau & Christopher Meyer, "Swarm Intelligence: A Whole New Way to Think About Business", Harvard Business Review, 2001)

"A system described as self-organizing is one in which elements interact in order to achieve dynamically a global function or behavior." (Carlos Gershenson, "A general methodology for designing self-organizing systems", 2006)

"In engineering, a self-organizing system would be one in which elements are designed to dynamically and autonomously solve a problem or perform a function at the system level. In other words, the engineer will not build a system to perform a function explicitly, but elements will be engineered in such a way that their behaviour and interactions will lead to the system function. Thus, the elements need to divide, but also to integrate, the problem." (Carlos Gershenson, "Design and Control of Self-organizing Systems", 2007)

"The second law of thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, entropy can only increase, not decrease. Such systems evolve to their state of maximum entropy, or thermodynamic equilibrium. Therefore, physical self-organizing systems cannot be isolated: they require a constant input of matter or energy with low entropy, getting rid of the internally generated entropy through the output of heat ('dissipation'). This allows them to produce ‘dissipative structures’ which maintain far from thermodynamic equilibrium. Life is a clear example of order far from thermodynamic equilibrium." (Carlos Gershenson, "Design and Control of Self-organizing Systems", 2007)

"Most systems in nature are inherently nonlinear and can only be described by nonlinear equations, which are difficult to solve in a closed form. Non-linear systems give rise to interesting phenomena such as chaos, complexity, emergence and self-organization. One of the characteristics of non-linear systems is that a small change in the initial conditions can give rise to complex and significant changes throughout the system. This property of a non-linear system such as the weather is known as the butterfly effect where it is purported that a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan can give rise to a tornado in Kansas. This unpredictable behaviour of nonlinear dynamical systems, i.e. its extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, seems to be random and is therefore referred to as chaos. This chaotic and seemingly random behaviour occurs for non-linear deterministic system in which effects can be linked to causes but cannot be predicted ahead of time." (Robert K Logan, "The Poetry of Physics and The Physics of Poetry", 2010)

"Cybernetics studies the concepts of control and communication in living organisms, machines and organizations including self-organization. It focuses on how a (digital, mechanical or biological) system processes information, responds to it and changes or being changed for better functioning (including control and communication)." (Dmitry A Novikov, "Cybernetics 2.0", 2016)

Game Theory II

"A proven theorem of game theory states that every game with complete information possesses a saddle point and therefore a solution." (Richard A Epstein, "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic" [Revised Edition], 1977)

"Game theory is a collection of mathematical models designed to study situations involving conflict and/or cooperation. It allows for a multiplicity of decision makers who may have different preferences and objectives. Such models involve a variety of different solution concepts concerned with strategic optimization, stability, bargaining, compromise, equity and coalition formation." (Notices of the American Mathematical Society Vol. 26 (1), 1979) 

"A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play." (James P Cars, "Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility", 1986)

"Game theory is a theory of strategic interaction. That is to say, it is a theory of rational behavior in social situations in which each player has to choose his moves on the basis of what he thinks the other players' countermoves are likely to be." (John Harsanyi, "Games with Incomplete Information", The American Economic Review Vol. 85 (3), 1997)

"In principle, every social situation involves strategic interaction among the participants. Thus, one might argue that proper understanding of any social situation would require game-theoretic analysis. But in actual fact, classical economic theory did manage to sidestep the game-theoretic aspects of economic behavior by postulating perfect competition, i. e., by assuming that every buyer and every seller is very small as compared with the size of the relevant markets, so that nobody can significantly affect the existing market prices by his actions." (John Harsanyi, "Games with Incomplete Information" 1997)

"Like all of mathematics, game theory is a tautology whose conclusions are true because they are contained in the premises." (Thomas Flanagan, "Game Theory and Canadian Politics", 1998)

"I think game theory creates ideas that are important in solving and approaching conflict in general." Robert Aumann, 2005)

"The players in a game are said to be in strategic equilibrium (or simply equilibrium) when their play is mutually optimal: when the actions and plans of each player are rational in the given strategic environment - i. e., when each knows the actions and plans of the others." (Robert Aumann, "War and Peace", 2005)

"An equilibrium is not always an optimum; it might not even be good. This may be the most important discovery of game theory." (Ivar Ekeland, "The Best of All Possible Worlds", 2006)

"Game theory brings to the chaos–theory table the idea that generally, societies are not designed, and that most situations don't come with a rulebook. Instead, people have their own plans and designs on how things should fit together. They want to determine how the game is played, and they see societal designers as myopic busybodies who would imprison them with their theories." (Lawrence K Samuels, "In Defense of Chaos: The Chaology of Politics, Economics and Human Action", 2013)

Game Theory I

"The implication of game theory, which is also the implication of the third image, is, however, that the freedom of choice of any one state is limited by the actions of the others." (Kenneth Waltz, "Man, the State, and War", 1959)

"At present game theory has, in my opinion, two important uses, neither of them related to games nor to conflict directly. First, game theory stimulates us to think about conflict in a novel way. Second, game theory leads to some genuine impasses, that is, to situations where its axiomatic base is shown to be insufficient for dealing even theoretically with certain types of conflict situations... Thus, the impact is made on our thinking process themselves, rather than on the actual content of our knowledge. (Anatol Rapoport, "Fights, games, and debates", 1960)

"It is the shortcomings of game theory (as originally formulated) which force the consideration of the role of ethics, of the dynamics of social structure, and of social structure and of individual psychology in situations of conflict." (Anatol Rapoport, "Fights, games, and debates", 1960)

"Although the drama of games of strategy is strongly linked with the psychological aspects of the conflict, game theory is not concerned with these aspects. Game theory, so to speak, plays the board. It is concerned only with the logical aspects of strategy." (Anatol Rapoport, "The Use and Misuse of Game Theory", Scientific American 207, 1962)

"Game theory applies to a very different type of conflict, now technically called a game. The well-known games such as poker, chess, ticktacktoe and so forth are games in the strict technical Bark and counterbark sense. But what makes parlor games is not their entertainment value or detachment from real life." (Anatol Rapoport, "The Use and Misuse of Game Theory", Scientific American 207, 1962)

"Whether game theory leads to clear-cut solutions, to vague solutions, or to impasses, it does achieve 

one thing. In bringing techniques of logical and mathematical analysis gives men an opportunity to bring conflicts up from the level of fights, where the intellect is beclouded by passions, to the level of games, where the intellect has a chance to operate." (Anatol Rapoport, "The Use and Misuse of Game Theory", Scientific American 207, 1962)

"[Game theory is] essentially a structural theory. It uncovers the logical structure of a great variety of conflict situations and describes this structure in mathematical terms. Sometimes the logical structure of a conflict situation admits rational decisions; sometimes it does not." (Anatol Rapoport, "Prisoner's dilemma: A study in conflict and cooperation", 1965)

"Evolutionary game theory is a way of thinking about evolution at the phenotypic level when the fitnesses of particular phenotypes depend on their frequencies in the population." (John M Smith, "Evolution and the Theory of Games", 1973)

"Strategy in complex systems must resemble strategy in board games. You develop a small and useful tree of options that is continuously revised based on the arrangement of pieces and the actions of your opponent. It is critical to keep the number of options open. It is important to develop a theory of what kinds of options you want to have open." (John H Holland, [presentation] 2000)

"Game theory postulates rational behavior for each participant. Each player is conscious of the rules and behaves in accordance with them, each player has sufficient knowledge of the situation in which he or she is involved to be able to evaluate what the best option is when it comes to taking action (a move), and each player takes into account the decisions that might be made by other participants and their repercussions with respect to his or her own decision. Game theory about zero-sum games with two participants is relevant for chess. In this type of situation, each action that is favorable to one participant (player) is proportionally unfavorable for the opponent. Thus, the gain of one represents the loss of the other." (Diego Rasskin-Gutman, "Chess Metaphors: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Mind", 2009)