Talk:Game theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Game theory is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh in
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of top-importance within game theory.

This article is part of WikiProject Poker, an attempt at building a useful poker resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics.
Mathematics grading:
FA Class	High Importance	Field: Discrete mathematics
Tompw 14:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC) A vital article.

Game theory appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2006.

Game theory has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Math.

WikiProject Echo has identified Game theory as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Hawk-dove = chicken? 2 An error in "imperfect information games"? 3 Who copied whom? 4 Quantum game theory 5 List of games in game theory on WP:FLC 6 Green 2002 7 Green 2005

[edit] Hawk-dove = chicken?

"Finally, biologists have used the hawk-dove game (also known as chicken) to analyze fighting behavior and territoriality." Is it correct that "chicken" is used as a term for "hawk-dove"-games? I always thought, there is a difference! Rieger 13:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Chicken and Hawk-Dove are both symmetrical discoordination games (as long as the standard V<C assumption is made for the Hawk-Dove game). The payoff matrices are essentially the same. In the matrix below, A is either Hawk or Don't Swerve, and B is Dove or Swerve, then they payoffs have the ranking Tempation>Coordination>Neutral>Punishment and the games will have the same reaction correspondences (see Best response#Discoordination games) or appendices in J theor Biol (2006) 241:639-648 :) )

Discoordination game payoff matrix

	A	B
A	Punishment, Punishment	Temptation, Neutral
B	Neutral, Temptation	Coordination, Coordination

Pete.Hurd 14:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An error in "imperfect information games"?

It says: "Most games studied in game theory are perfect information games, although there are some interesting examples of imperfect information games, including the ultimatum game and centipede game."

But when looking at these examples (the ultimatum game and the centipede game) closer they both seem to be perfect information games. For example, in the ultimatum game, when making the decision, the second player knows the move of the first player, and thus this game is a perfect information game. The same holds for the centipede game.

The example picture of an imperfect information game is correct, though.

Thank you for point that out. It was originally correct, but was apparently changed at some point. I have changed it back. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who copied whom?

Ok, so I was searching around for information on game theory. I found this, and it sounded very familiar. I don't know if everyone already knows about this, and I'm just behind the loop, or what, but I'll just leave this here and you guys can take action if you need to.

http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/ga/game_theory.html

Similar doesn't even begin to describe it. Vancar 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

So I checked out some other things at Brainyencyclopedia.com. I don't know why, but all of their articles are just like Wikipedia's. I'm guessing that it's supposed to be this way, now that I've seen several articles, but I don't know why it would be the same... Anyone want to fill me in? Vancar 20:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

From that link "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL". It is a wikipedia mirror. Martin 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] List of games in game theory on WP:FLC

List of games in game theory is a current Featured List candidate. Both the article and current nomination would benefit from additional feedback by Math and Game-theory enthusiasts. If any of you have the time, please have a look at the list and leave your comments at the nomination page. Thank you! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green 2002

I removed this edit. I looked at Green's paper and it said the opposite of what the edit said, namely, the findings suggest that game theorists are better than novices, but not as good as role playing. Since this article is about game theory generally, and not role playing, I think its inappropriate for this article. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green 2005

The previous contributor clearly didn't look at the commentaries on Green 2002 or at Green 2005 which extends the work. So that others don't make the same mistake, I've rewritten the paragraph with more detail. I hope this clarifies the relevance of the findings to game theory.

Kesten Green

Thank you for your interest in the game theory. As I mentioned above, I read the article cited in the addition (Green 2002), which says that game theorists were better than novices (contra the addition which said that game theorists were not better than novices). I have a few concerns with the most recent edit. Since this is a general article on game theory, I think its inappropriate that this one article (or two articles) are displayed so prominently. By comparison, almost as many words are written about Green 2005 as game theory in biology. Obviously, this makes the green study appear more influential than it has been. Second, there is no citation for the claim that people have tried to refute the conclusions but failed. Who has? Where are these results published? Although you may personally be aware of them, I'm afraid that wikipedia requires that such claims be verifiable by others. Finally, I cannot really judge the importance of this paper. I have no doubt that its an interesting study, but given its recency and lack of citations I'm not sure that it should be included. Can you provide any external evidence that this paper has had wide influence in the game theory community? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Since no discussion has been forthcoming, I have removed the paragraph. Please do not restore it without attempting to reach a consensus here. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)