Talk:Cheap talk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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! |
|
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance within game theory. |
[edit] Category: population genetics
This is an article about game theory. The applications to biology are important, but so are the applications (of game theory in general) to many other subjects. It wouldn't be appropriate to list all the categories relating to those subjects here and in the same way I don't think that this categorisation is appropriate.
I'm open-minded so please prove me wrong if you disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reetep (talk • contribs)
This article may be technically correct, but it seems quite wrong in style for Wikipedia. It is pitched too high and uses too much "academese". How is a layman expected to understand this:
"Consider a game comprising two players, a sender and a receiver. ... Nature chooses the sender's type at the start of the game, but this choice is unobserved by the receiver. The order of play is an action taken by the sender (a message) and then an action taken by the receiver. Crucially in a cheap talk game, the sender's action does not affect the payoff per se, insofar as for a given sender type and a given receiver action, payoffs will be the same regardless of the sender's message."
And please avoid references like "The sender has a non-singleton type space." This would be too abbreviated for an economics paper, and is completely out of place here. FWadel 10:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe cheap talk is costless but rather the cost is low enough that it does not prevent communication from occurring. Although I can't find a source for this one obvious cost would be oppurtunity cost. Mjakubowski (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
