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

(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. The precise meaning of the words is explained in the body of the article, as one would expect. Can you try to articulate further what you think is unclear/difficult/whatever about the first paragraph? --JBL (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Behavioral game theory, decision-making, and rethinking the design of "economics and business" heading's content

This article needs to refer to (and link to) behavioral game theory. Behavioral game theory has grown from economics, but also the psychology of judgement and decision-making. It's basically game theory applied to human decision-making that includes considerations for bounded rationality, "natural" preferences, norms, etc. It's now used in everything from anthropology to resource management, hardly restricted to economics and business. In the "General and Applied Uses" > "Economics and Business" subheading of the article, behavioral economics is mentioned, but behavioral game theory is not, even though it's in the titles of several citations. The content itself under that heading has become fairly redundant with the rest of the article, and doesn't have much content specific to business or economics. Of course, since econ, sociology, psych, etc are all social sciences, there's going to be a decent amount of overlap and fuzziness of topics. Still, I'd suggest that 1. "Economics and Business" be reworked with some content that's specific to business and economics. 2. A "Decision-Making and Social Behavior" heading be added that includes some of the content from behavioral game theory, links to it, and refers to it by name. Alternatively, the heading could just be "Behavioral Game Theory." 174.52.240.90 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)