MN: But they never get out of business. And the amazing thing is the average abundance of co-operators in this pattern is very close to 12log 2-8.
David: What does that mean?
Ard: It’s close to constant.
MN: It converges to a constant which is approximately 31%, and this is a mathematical curiosity.
Ard: Natural selection would say the co-operators would get wiped out, because they are paying a cost to help their competitors. And yet it’s not happening. So why?
MN: The reason why it’s not happening is because the co-operators form clusters and in those clusters of co-operators, they actually get a high payoff. They have a high fitness.
David: So they do better?
MN: They do better than the defectors that are surrounded by other defectors. So we always have to ask, on the edge between a co-operator and defector cluster, who is actually winning?
MN: Because the co-operator, even though sitting on the edge, is still getting all the help from other co-operators inside, but a defector is, sort of, getting no help from his defectors. And therefore the co-operators form these clusters that can persist and can even grow in the presence of defectors.
Ard: So this is a bit like, if I’m with my neighbours and we help each other, then we’ll, in the end, be better off than the neighbours one block down who don’t help one another.
MN: Yes, that’s right. So the neighbours that help each other, they form a community that is cooperative, and the neighbours who don’t help each other, they form a community that is defective. And the first can prosper and the other one will kind of perish.
David: Is this, sort of, an addition to the rule of competition in natural selection. Is this a natural law of cooperation?
MN: I think the very interesting observation is the following: going back to first principles, natural selection favours defectors over co-operators. Yet we have cooperation in nature, and we need to find a reason why there is cooperation in nature. And thousands of papers have been written on that topic, actually, and I have been trying to classify all those different propositions into five mechanisms.
And what we’re seeing here is one of those five mechanisms, for the evolution of cooperation, that I call spatial selection.
Thu, Jan 6, 9:25 AM
I have been getting my head further around The Energy Market and how it affects the money supply
I think the priority variables are
1. Electricity Base Load production, Coal and Natural Gas, and LPG products?
2. Crude Oil Production and Refinery capacities, Volumes of production are more important than the price per barrel
3. Swing Production from Shale or Capped and ready to go existing discoveries, Very important to who has upper hand
on Marginal pricing on swing production, Texas Rail Road, OPEC, US Shale production?
4. Gas Production and Coal production are probably equal with 3 or interchangeable with 3.
5. Venezuelan and Iranian supply disruption through Sanctions is a political bottleneck to an otherwise trivial supply problem
in the Oil Market.
6. Geo-Political and Green New Deal political economy choices vis Gas Pipe Lines are again self-inflicted own goals?
7. Money Velocity and Money Supply related to energy use growth are being severely impacted by levels of Consumer, Corporate and Sovereign debt.
12log 2-8’ers gonna 12log 2-8, and Haters Gonna Hate. #Aadhaar
Haters Gonna Hate.
“The only Libor ‘rigging’ that was really bad was the lowballing. That was ordered from the top – from central banks and governments. And neither the Department of Justice nor the Serious Fraud Office has ever brought that to trial.”
TOFrederick Soddy’s‘Interpretation Of Radium’This Story,Which Owes Long PassagesTo The Eleventh Chapter Of That Book,Acknowledges And Inscribes Itself
For pairs of lips to kiss maybe
Involves no trigonometry.
‘Tis not so when four circles kiss
Each one the other three.
To bring this off the four must be
As three in one or one in three.
If one in three, beyond a doubt
Each gets three kisses from without.
If three in one, then is that one
Thrice kissed internally.
Four circles to the kissing come.
The smaller are the benter.
The bend is just the inverse of
The distance from the center.
Though their intrigue left Euclid dumb
There’s now no need for rule of thumb.
Since zero bend’s a dead straight line
And concave bends have minus sign,
The sum of the squares of all four bends
Is half the square of their sum.
To spy out spherical affairs
An oscular surveyor
Might find the task laborious,
The sphere is much the gayer,
And now besides the pair of pairs
A fifth sphere in the kissing shares.
Yet, signs and zero as before,
For each to kiss the other four
The square of the sum of all five bends
Is thrice the sum of their squares.
If four circles A, B, C, and D, of radii r1, r2, r3, and r4, are drawn so that they do not overlap but each touches the other three, and if we let b1 = 1/r1, etc., then
(b1 + b2 + b3 + b4)2 = 2(b12 + b22 + b32 + b42).