Jarek Hirny wrote:
>>The problem is that games are theoretical constructs that don't map
>>obviously to real organisms. One factor is that games suppose a
>>"currency",
>>but we don't generally know how valuable a grain of feed is to a
>>pigeon, for
>>example.
> 
> 
> Well, it's not important how valuable it is, by which I mean that you
> don't have to measure it in any units. You rather need to know only
> whether action A is more valuable to pigeon than action B to hawk. Which
> is not simple at all to estimate, but, I think, not impossible to
> do too. It's just the same thing as with "Utility" idea in economic
> sciences.
> 
Actually, there is a clear utility in the case of evolution: fitness. 
This is one of the reasons why game theory works so well.

Of course, estimating the fitness is another matter, but yes there are 
ways of doing that too - if you can fin a copy of Manly's book "The 
Statistics of Natural Selection", then you'll see a host of methods (and 
there have been more developments in the last 20 years, too).

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
Journal of Negative Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/2/04 3:18:46 PM