Why Pandemic Deduction is simply BAD

Pandemic Game LR Before we start, you can read Akiyama’s chain of reasoning in this document. Let me clear up a possible misunderstanding first — my goal here isn’t to directly disprove Akiyama’s deduction. What I actually want to do is explain why Akiyama’s reasoning burns way more cognitive energy than necessary, and to present a simpler alternative model that does the same job more efficiently. 1. If you’re wondering why that makes Akiyama’s deduction “bad,” it’s because in its current form it’s just not that impressive. Figuring out the system’s basic axioms is something any observer could do, since the rules themselves are deterministic and already define everything for you. Now I’ll lay out the rules of the Pandemic Game. R1. Two of the players will be chosen as "Infected" at the beginning of the game. R2. A player can confirm their status by using one of the four "examination rooms". R3. When 2 "normal" players "contact" they will each receive one vaccine. R4. When 2 "infected" players "contact" nothing happens. R5. When a "normal" contacts an "infected", the normal person will become "infected". R6. When an "infected" contacts a "vaccine holder" they will become "normal", while the other player loses a vaccine. R7. An "infected" who owns vaccines can click "activate" on their watch to become "normal". As a result, the player will lose a vaccine. And here’s how you can derive the system’s three fundamental axioms from them. “If 10 players contact each …