>>64510419
>No, according to DF they will attempt to destroy you regardless, because it's the only option that can potentially give a positive benefit.
The problem is that (since we're assuming loosely human thoughttrains here), positive is not the only factor of descionmaking. Negatives also exist, and if the negative outweighs the positive, then the positive is unlikely to be chosen.
In this instance, the negatives are:
1. A failure of total destruction, resulting in a retaliatory strike.
2. A detection before strike, resulting in a retaliatory strike.
3. A detection of your strike by a third party, resulting in a pre-emptive strike.
In this instance, destroying a civilization not known to be dangerous is, in and of itself, dangerous, as they may destroy you in turn, or your attempt will be noticed and you will be destroyed by another, third party, as destroying a destroyer is the only rational move according to this calcuation.
> All other options are either 0 or -inf
But destruction is also infinite, as you must rely on your strike being undetected (due to the transmission of light, this may be observed even millenia in the future, so it is perpetually a factor to consider, thus the potential detection radius is equal only to the farthest location in the galaxy that can observe the strike, which would take so long that it's functionally infinite) and that destruction is complete and total (survivors may launch a retaliatory strike at any point in the future, and thus this threat is potentially infinite at well).
There is no 'finality' in this scenario unless you manage to devestate all other life in the galaxy before being devestated yourself, which is a tall order.