Jump to content

Talk:Game theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MrOllie (talk | contribs) at 14:25, 28 January 2024 (Restored revision 1193887794 by Cewbot (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleGame theory is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
March 18, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


GT in epidemiology

In this edit I partially restored this edit which was reverted in this edit. A review article of the use of tool X in field Y is exactly the correct type of WP:RS to establish a claim of the form "X is a commonly used tool in Y field". I also added in coverage in the popular media for good measure. It certainly looks to me like game theory is used enough in epidemiology to warrant including a section about it in this article. The second half of the material that was reverted, in contrast, is WP:UNDUE focus on a single paper for inclusion in a general encyclopedia article on game theory, and I have not restored that. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prizes

"As of 2014, with the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences going to game theorist Jean Tirole, eleven game theorists have won the economics Nobel Prize. John Maynard Smith was awarded the Crafoord Prize for his application of evolutionary game theory."

This is pretty out of date. If I'm not mistaken the 2016 and 2020 Nobel Prizes were awarded for work in Game Theory. If someone is able to confirm this understanding, I suggest an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction should mention John Nash

The introduction mentions von Neumann and Morgenstern, but doesn't mention John Nash or Nash equilibria. It probably should, though. Macoroni (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]