Final answer:
The statement is false; a robbery can still be considered as such without a visible or stated weapon. The nature of the crime is determined by the act of forcefully taking property, and the absence of a weapon does not preclude this. Law enforcement may use game theory strategies, like the Prisoner's Dilemma, to resolve ambiguities in such cases.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that an incident does not have to be treated like a robbery if the robber doesn't say or show that they have a weapon is false. A robbery is defined by the act of taking something of value from another, with the intent to permanently deprive them of it, through force or the threat of force.
The implication or use of a weapon can indeed increase the severity of the robbery charge, but its absence does not change the basic nature of the crime. Even a suggestion of potential harm can be enough to categorize an incident as a robbery.
In the scenario given, the police employ a strategic approach similar to the Prisoner's Dilemma, a concept in game theory. The suspects must decide whether to 'defect' by informing on the other or 'cooperate' with their fellow suspect at the risk of facing heavier charges themselves. This strategy is used to incentivize one suspect to confess or implicate the other, potentially resolving the ambiguity of the case for the police.