Talk:Game theory

Quantum game theory

Unless I'm looking the wrong place, the quantum game theory page is a bit bare (to say the least) but in any case, does anyone agree that it would be interesting if added here? QGT is one of the more interesting and accessible topics in quantum theory.- 26/10/06 Paul

"Perfect information and imperfect information" section

This seems to mix everything up. I'd suggest a rewrite like this, but I don't feel qualified to change it.

---

Perfect information and imperfect information Main article: Perfect information

An important subset of sequential games consists of games of perfect information. A game is one of perfect information if all players know the moves previously made by all other players. Thus, only sequential games can be games of perfect information because players in simultaneous games do not know the actions of the other players. Interesting examples of perfect-information games include the ultimatum game and centipede game. Recreational games of perfect information games include chess, go and mancala.

Perfect information is often confused with complete information, which is a similar concept. See: (provide a link to one place where notion is discussed well...)

Most games studied in game theory are imperfect-information games. Many card games are games of imperfect information, such as poker or contract bridge. Games of incomplete information can be reduced, however, to games of imperfect information by introducing "moves by nature" (Leyton-Brown & Shoham

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Game theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120505140924/http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/asia/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521872829 to http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/asia/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521872829

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Economics Sidebar

I think that the economics sidebar should be removed, since Game Theory doesn't seem to be primarily concerned with Economics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Get Learnt (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes I would be in agreement with you, there are much more approproate imagges. Fro exampel a symbolic depiction of the a network or the proziners Dilema.

I first met Game Theory in Apllied Mathematics II - Dynamic Programming — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipdc (talk • contribs) 12:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

(Non-)determinstic: in terminology?

I hesitate to add this, as I am not familiar with the usual terminology, but surely there is an important distinction, worth adding under Game types, between games whose course is entirely determined by the decisions of the players and those influenced by an element of chance. (This is of course not the same as Determinacy or a determined game.) If added, it would also belong in Glossary of game theory. @David Eppstein: since you just edited the article! PJTraill (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence is not good, and most of the intro is a real struggle

I don't know this topic. The whole intro is very hard to follow for the uninitiated. And in the 1st sentence using the phrase "rational decision-makers" without links is so broad and sounds more philosophical than mathematical. Is that the nature of this thing, still very amorphous even after ~60 years?

The 4th sentence would be a better start: "game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers." But again, those three are very not equally "rational decision-makers" unless that distinction is made way more clear.

I do not know this topic so I can't suggest how to improve it, except to say it direly needs clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatfish (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"Logical" and "rational" are both common words, and are synonyms. In the field they have precise meanings, which are explained later in the article. I am totally sympathetic to the idea that Wikipedia articles on mathematical subjects are often not accessible enough, but surely one must try to read past the first paragraph to have a convincing story about whether or not it is accessible? --JBL (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)