Comments on: State analysis (sometimes, the problem is too easy to be easily solved) http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/11/state-analysis-sometimes-the-problem-is-too-easy-to-be-easily-solved/ Thu, 17 May 2012 15:16:13 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Dr. Bubb http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/11/state-analysis-sometimes-the-problem-is-too-easy-to-be-easily-solved/#comment-250 Dr. Bubb Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:58:50 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=108#comment-250 If the hat cost $5, them the loss would be: $10 - ($7-5) = $8 In Hong Kong, the hat might have cost $3. and been counterfeit also. So the loss would be minimizses If the hat cost $5, them the loss would be:

$10 - ($7-5) = $8

In Hong Kong, the hat might have cost $3. and been counterfeit also. So the loss would be minimizses

]]> By: Fabian Szulanski http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/11/state-analysis-sometimes-the-problem-is-too-easy-to-be-easily-solved/#comment-229 Fabian Szulanski Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:35:45 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=108#comment-229 And if we expanded our viewpoint so we thought that effects could be far in time and distance, and non proportional, the loss of reputation the counterfeit bill could generate to the multiple "givers" could be worth thousands times more than the intrinsic value of the bill. Adding on top of Dov's bullet example, there might appear compunding effects such as the above mentioned negative word of mouth effect. Cheers! Fabian And if we expanded our viewpoint so we thought that effects could be far in time and distance, and non proportional, the loss of reputation the counterfeit bill could generate to the multiple “givers” could be worth thousands times more than the intrinsic value of the bill. Adding on top of Dov’s bullet example, there might appear compunding effects such as the above mentioned negative word of mouth effect.
Cheers!
Fabian

]]> By: dov tibi http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/11/state-analysis-sometimes-the-problem-is-too-easy-to-be-easily-solved/#comment-223 dov tibi Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:54:40 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=108#comment-223 Yoni, I dont agree with you, in our case he lost the 10$ not more and not less (in order to simplify the problem I defined that the cost of the hat and the price of the hat are the same) but even in a more complicted case that there is a profit, still you should calculate the lost of the potential profit and you will get this 10$. in other words, from the state analysis point of view and based on the fact that in econimical transactions we are talking about zero sum game, if somebody gain 10$ than somebody has to lose the same 10$ Yoni,
I dont agree with you, in our case he lost the 10$ not more and not less (in order to simplify the problem I defined that the cost of the hat and the price of the hat are the same) but even in a more complicted case that there is a profit, still you should calculate the lost of the potential profit and you will get this 10$.
in other words, from the state analysis point of view and based on the fact that in econimical transactions we are talking about zero sum game, if somebody gain 10$ than somebody has to lose the same 10$

]]> By: Yoni Stern http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/11/state-analysis-sometimes-the-problem-is-too-easy-to-be-easily-solved/#comment-217 Yoni Stern Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:24:19 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=108#comment-217 Dov, if I understand correctly your answer to Amnon, then in a non-zero-sum game, the loss could be more or less than $10. For example, if we know that the salesperson makes a $2 profit on each hat he sells, then all he can really lose (maximum) from a counterfeit $10 bill in exchange for a hat is $8. The remaining $2 is simply a lack of potential profit that he could have gained. Right? Dov, if I understand correctly your answer to Amnon, then in a non-zero-sum game, the loss could be more or less than $10. For example, if we know that the salesperson makes a $2 profit on each hat he sells, then all he can really lose (maximum) from a counterfeit $10 bill in exchange for a hat is $8. The remaining $2 is simply a lack of potential profit that he could have gained. Right?

]]> By: dov tibi http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/11/state-analysis-sometimes-the-problem-is-too-easy-to-be-easily-solved/#comment-211 dov tibi Sat, 15 Nov 2008 15:57:16 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=108#comment-211 Amnon hi You are 100% right, and the more simple explanation you gave is exactly what I meant in the alternative end of the story. However, when applying state analysis one should be very careful building the chain of logic that takes him from the initial state (the problem) to the final state (the solution). For example when you state " ... and how much of a damage can a 10$ bill do?" and answer: "if its worth $0 then exactly $10, so that is the answer." You are of course right here based on the fact that we are talking about Zero sum game, but assume a case of an armed robbery a 5 cent bullet may cause a considerable damage. dov Amnon hi
You are 100% right, and the more simple explanation you gave is exactly what I meant in the alternative end of the story. However, when applying state analysis one should be very careful building the chain of logic that takes him from the initial state (the problem) to the final state (the solution). For example when you state ” … and how much of a damage can a 10$ bill do?” and answer: “if its worth $0 then exactly $10, so that is the answer.” You are of course right here based on the fact that we are talking about Zero sum game, but assume a case of an armed robbery a 5 cent bullet may cause a considerable damage.
dov

]]> By: Amnon Levav http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/11/state-analysis-sometimes-the-problem-is-too-easy-to-be-easily-solved/#comment-208 Amnon Levav Fri, 14 Nov 2008 19:17:50 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=108#comment-208 hi Dov, As a veteran (and admiring) student of yours, i was of course applying State Analysis as i was reading your post. my application of it i think was even more simple (maybe too simple? i think Roni H warned us from that in a post of his). there is one element here that is "doing the damage" and that is the bill. so any damage to anyone comes from the bill. and how much of a damage can a 10$ bill do? if its worth $0 then exactly $10, so thats the answer. using the same logic, if the bill is bona fide then no damage could have been done so the answer is 0. (true that you have to make sure that within the $10 or $0 damage there wasnt any specific damage to the salesguy but thata relatively easy). thanks as always for a good learning Amnon hi Dov,

As a veteran (and admiring) student of yours, i was of course applying State Analysis as i was reading your post. my application of it i think was even more simple (maybe too simple? i think Roni H warned us from that in a post of his). there is one element here that is “doing the damage” and that is the bill. so any damage to anyone comes from the bill. and how much of a damage can a 10$ bill do? if its worth $0 then exactly $10, so thats the answer. using the same logic, if the bill is bona fide then no damage could have been done so the answer is 0. (true that you have to make sure that within the $10 or $0 damage there wasnt any specific damage to the salesguy but thata relatively easy).
thanks as always for a good learning
Amnon

]]> By: Fabian Szulanski http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/11/state-analysis-sometimes-the-problem-is-too-easy-to-be-easily-solved/#comment-207 Fabian Szulanski Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:13:12 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=108#comment-207 Hummm... I'll risk my reputation here.. lol In the new scenario, the customer's gain was 0 (a genuine bill for a $7 hat + $3 change); the neighbor's gain was also 0 (he gave the salesman a genuine bill and the salesman compensated him for that same bill). Thus the salesman's lost is 0 in this case, provided his bill examination process is 100% precise. Interesting if we added some additional complexities, such as ethics, and others. Thanks for the brain massage :) Hummm… I’ll risk my reputation here.. lol
In the new scenario, the customer’s gain was 0 (a genuine bill for a $7 hat + $3 change); the neighbor’s gain was also 0 (he gave the salesman a genuine bill and the salesman compensated him for that same bill). Thus the salesman’s lost is 0 in this case, provided his bill examination process is 100% precise.
Interesting if we added some additional complexities, such as ethics, and others.
Thanks for the brain massage :)

]]>