User:Lukef442/Quantum game theory/WISE Physics Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Lukef442


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lukef442/Quantum_game_theory?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Quantum game theory

Evaluate the drafted changes
Sources are well-selected in terms of reputability and variety.

In the "History" section, the first sentence is missing a citation which appears in the current article.

This sentence: "When both players choose this strategy every turn, they each ensure a suboptimal profit, but cannot lose, and the game is said to have reached a Nash equilibrium." should be rewritten for clarity as follows: "When both players choose the dominant every turn, each ensures suboptimal profit but cannot lose, so the game is said to have reached a Nash equilibrium." I think this sentiment about selectively choosing grammar such that it is grammatically correct, clear, and as concise as possible could be applied throughout. Therefore, I would suggest going through what you have written and examining each sentence structurally.

The sentence "In the case where the states are only slightly entangled, there exists a certain unitary operation for Alice so that if Bob chooses betrayal every turn, Alice will actually gain more profit than Bob and vice versa." is a bit ambiguous, and the same can be said for "Profit would be maximized for both players if each chose to cooperate every turn, but this is not the rational choice, thus a suboptimal solution is the dominant outcome." Why does the unitary operation result in Alice's gaining more profit than Bob, and also why does this mean that a profitable equilibrium can be achieve in two additional ways rather than one? Is the "certain unitary operation" a unique operation for each entanglement state? Why is the choice to cooperate every turn not a rational choice? Also note term "unitary operation" should be linked to a corresponding Wiki page describing the unitary operation. I think it would be helpful to explain to readers what is meant by "most entangled" when you say "In the case where the initial state is most entangled shows the most change from the classical game." Similarly, what is meant by "slightly entangled"? While the paragraph effectively explains possible moves and results, I recommend going through the Quantum Prisoner's Dilemma" and fleshing out the why 's and how 's of the paragraph. On this thread, why is the phenomenon called a prisoner's dilemma? It may also be helpful to organize within the paragraph by the different cases mentioned (in a numbered list), so that the reader can keep track of the various cases.

On the whole, I think one of biggest set-backs of the Quantum Prisoner's Dilemma is that it assumes that the reader has prior knowledge about the Classical Prisoner's Dilemma. It also references "equilibrium strategy" and "equilibrium" with no explanation. Therefore, it would be helpful to explain briefly the classical version before going into the differences in the Quantum version of the game and to explain the concept of an equilibrium strategy. The paragraph further states "Classically, the infinite Prisoner's Dilemma has no defined fixed strategy but in the quantum version it is possible to develop an equilibrium strategy. ," which also requires the reader have prior knowledge about the meaning of a fixed strategy. In the Quantum Chess Paragraph, be sure to include a hyperlink on the term superposition so that readers, should they not know what superposition is, can clink on the term and read about it. It seems this section is incomplete in the sandbox as is, so of course my suggestion is to develop it further.

This completes my peer review! :)