I honestly may have been unclear, so I apologize. It's directly related--these are the extra dimensions not accounted for in the criticism of this game theorist's analysis, which supposedly affect the outcome.
So if you can refute my argument, you can easily say that this criticism of this game theorist's analysis is valid, but as I said, my experience does not lie in this field at all, so you probably won't find any difficulty in doing so. It's just pretty obvious to me given my mathematical background that this criticism is meaningless without an understanding of the reasoning behind how the dimensionality was reduced. My point is just that such arguments are easy to make and probably easy to prove as well.
In any case, it leaves room for increasingly complex models to disagree with the results of this one.
> We can't accept any model we're presented with just because it's possible that it's correct.
I agree with this completely, but it doesn't refute this particular reduction of complexity either, which is the point of my post. I may have been too verbose.
So if you can refute my argument, you can easily say that this criticism of this game theorist's analysis is valid, but as I said, my experience does not lie in this field at all, so you probably won't find any difficulty in doing so. It's just pretty obvious to me given my mathematical background that this criticism is meaningless without an understanding of the reasoning behind how the dimensionality was reduced. My point is just that such arguments are easy to make and probably easy to prove as well.
In any case, it leaves room for increasingly complex models to disagree with the results of this one.
> We can't accept any model we're presented with just because it's possible that it's correct.
I agree with this completely, but it doesn't refute this particular reduction of complexity either, which is the point of my post. I may have been too verbose.