Talk:Nash bargaining game

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!

Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh in
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within game theory.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Kzollman (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Merge from Nash bargaining solution

Any objections? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

None from me, I think I created it because it was a redlink somewhere and I dug up the references while trying to find a decent source for this in the course of reading through Roughgarden's recent Science paper... It should still go down in the game theory project as a topic in (pretty desperate) need of a good write-up. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 00:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! Its been on my list of things to do for a long time... I'll merge the two now. Thanks Pete! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] nash's 1950 paper

I took a look at Nash's famous 1950 paper, and it doesn't seem to express bargaining in terms of the game used here. In fact there isn't really any notion of the process of bargaining, just a discussion of what the outcomes might be. Is there some other paper in which Nash described the game form shown here?

The most important game associated with the Nash bargaining solution is probably Ariel Rubinstein's, described in 1982 in "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model".

Check out Nash (1953)"The Two Person Co-Operative Game" Econometrica p. 128-40. It has the full discussion of the relevant material. El_Jogg 18:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Absolute values? / Article emphasis

Two points:

First, the Nash product in the article is currently |u(x) - u(d)||v(y) - v(d)|, which suggests that negative "excesses" are just as valuable as positive ones. Perhaps the notation could be changed to, for example, max(u(x)-u(d),0) or (u(x) - u(d))^+ (the latter is used commonly in engineering literature, at least). This would resolve the ambiguity.

Second, surely the Nash bargaining solution itself is more important than its application to this particular game. NBS is studied extensively in its own right, unconnected to any single game. The game also doesn't appear (as is alleged in the introduction) in the 1950 "The Bargaining Problem". Perhaps the article should be reorganized to present the NBS as the central focus, showing the bargaining game as an application that has gotten recent attention by Skyrms and others. Thoughts?

Mateoee (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The Bargaining Problem"

In the absence of any feedback, I removed the statement suggesting that the Nash Bargaining Game appears in Nash's 1950 "The Bargaining Problem". I also skimmed through his 1953 Econometrica paper, as was suggested by another user, and I didn't find a specific description of the game, either. Mateoee (talk) 22:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)