Genesis of Coherent Cooperative Games

Arriving at Coherent Cooperative Games from mathematical principals

“Genesis of Coherent Cooperative Games”. Royalty free image by DALL-E 3 and Victor Morante

Coherent Cooperative Games in the broader context (human) and as I describe them has arrived completely by accident.

My background and research has, over the last 29 years and even longer, has been technical and covered meta-logic, meta-mathematics and computer science. The thesis has been the variable interpretation of a single-meta-model to arrive at what I came to label a Coherent Cooperative Game where computer software itself could engage with data within the metamodel as to arrive at an interpretation expectant of both the data stored within the metamodel and as expectant of the user of that software, being made also aware of what they were looking at.

In principle, what this amounted to was the notion of “What you put in is what you can pull out, but is not necessarily what others may find useful, but may find very useful”.

I pictured this as an Infinity Fountain:

“The Infinity Fountain”. Royalty Free image by Victor Morgante/author.

So, imagining the metamodel of first-order logic (FOL), we have the variable interpretations of structures under the Lowenheim Skolem Theorem, or Ehrenfeucht Fraisse Games (EFGs).

The principle applies equally well to the humanities and variable interpretation and intention, and where we consider the parallels of logic/mathematics… “Logic is by extension rather than intension”, and the humanities “Interpretation subjective beyond the intention”.

Coherent Cooperative Games offer a way to set the groundwork for intension/intention. Allowing for Differential Interpretation Games (DIGs) where players may accidentally or intentionally play by a different set of rules outside the Coherent Cooperative Game, and with whatever consequence, negative or positive, that comes from the DIG (differential interpretation in act or perception).

In practice, with the software developed, this resulted in the ability to do this:

“Differential Interpretation”. Royalty free image by author.

Mathematically/Logically, the structures have different number of points-of-structure and form different graphs, however they stem from the same metamodel and from data within one meta-metamodel.

Application of this logic to the humanities I describe in this article: [here] with links to further reading, including application to law.

I.e. Coherent Cooperative Games provide a framework for peace (mutual understanding of rules with added cooperation and intention), with allowance for disagreement (differential interpretation in action/act or understanding…DIGs), a framework for the resolution of differential interpretation to the reestablishment of a Coherent Cooperative Game, with the understanding that differential interpretation may be destructive or constructive. At least the presence of a framework, Coherent Cooperative Games (such as the machinations of the United Nations, in principal/vision), provides a foundation for peace, which, I believe, is necessary to juxtapose the language of war. If peace is essential, or desirable, then so are Coherent Cooperative Games.

The premise of a Coherent Cooperative Game, as I describe them, is that:

“If you play, there is only one type of play or move which is that on each move you play the other player wins. The rules of the game are open and coherently known to each player. Play tokens are defined by the rules and may be the rules themselves.”

I.e. You can choose to play or not. But if you do, then that is a Coherent Cooperative Game.

Thank you for reading. This provides insight into the Genesis of Coherent Cooperative Games and as I describe them.

=====Further Reading=====

1. Coherent Cooperative Games — As I describe them;
2. The Genesis of Coherent Cooperative Games;
3. Coherent Cooperative Games — Described;
4. Coherent Cooperative Games and the Law;
5. Formal Logic — And Coherent Cooperative Games;

….and…

1. All of Logic is a Game;
2. What is Formal Logic;
3. Applied Use of Ehrenfeucht Fraisse Games;
4. What is a Graph Database;

…and…

1. The Atoms of Knowledge;
2. The Richmond Architecture;

…and where it all started:

1. Morphing Conceptual Models.

===============End===============