![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
This page is an Archive of the discussions from
WikiProject Game theory talk page (Discussion page).
![]() |
---|
Aloha - Happy new year to everyone. Some time ago, User:Trialsanderrors suggested a collaboration of the week sort of thing. I think this would be a good idea, although given the time I have to dedicate, perhaps a collaboration of the month or collaboration of the fortnight might be better. If anyone thinks this might be a good idea, I'll set it up. Probably we'll just make a list of pages and rotate the list every month/fortnight. Sound cool? --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay we're up and running with a collaboration for the month, including spiffy new blue box. Who can resist contributing now? Add whatever you like to the list for future collaborations. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 00:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I havn't been working here much recently, and I see that the average game theory article looks a lot better than it did even a few months ago. I just made a start on an article for risk dominance, but it isn't too pretty (nor is it too comprehensible, I think). Plus, it might not even be very correct. So I'm wondering (hoping?) that someone can come look at it and make any quick/easy fixes. Also, I couldn't find an extension of the concept to large games, and the article also needs a discussion of its application to evolutionary games (both things that I will try to do later, but I thought I'd mention here in case someone else was looking for something to do). Thanks, Smmurphy( Talk) 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello all - I have updated the collaboration of the month for February. I think the January collaboration went well. I know the article still needs some work, but I think the article(s) are much improved. However, we now have no new articles for the months to come. Please add any article that you think needs some TLC to the list. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 20:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Are we done with risk dominance? If so we should wrap it up by deciding whether we need two articles, and what the name of the article/s should be ("dominance" or "dominant equilibrium"). ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I created this category and replaced some uses of Category:Evolutionary dynamics with it. Feel free to revert if there is a meaningful difference between the two. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone got a good image for this? I'm still using the one from econ-stub. Nothing in game tree or extensive form game looks usable. ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
hey, there seems to be two pages-one topic: Neumann-Morgenstern utility and Expected utility hypothesis, with a mention at Utility#Expected utility. What do you think? I've put in a mergeto/from in the direction of Expected utility hypothesis... Smmurphy( Talk) 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there wasn't an article for division game. I created a stub, but I'm guessing that it already exists elsewhere, right? Its too late for me to try to guess what other names the game might have. Also, is it major enough to get a spot in the GT template? I see it as the "brother" of the ultimatum game, and equally fundamental. Smmurphy( Talk) 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics:
I did a couple letters (T-Z)... Smmurphy( Talk) 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to leave NE for the Collaboration for April. I really haven't had a chance to edit it, and it doesn't look like others have really either. I don't know if I'll have more time in April than I did in March but perhaps others will. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 05:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Anybody else noticed b:Introduction to Game Theory? Not that I have any extra time lying around to work on this project, but since WikiBooks is also a GFDL project, we might be able to steal (I mean use) some material if we find it useful. Perhaps others might be interested too... --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 04:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the article outcome (game theory), which is a rather pathetic stub. Don't we already have an article on this somewhere that this could redirect to? Smmurphy( Talk) 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI in cooperative game theory outcome is a payoff-configuration/partition pair. Koczy 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of you might have noticed recent edits made to Arrow's impossibility theorem by User:Dr. I .D. A. MacIntyre. The edits were out of place and poorly formatted, and have been moved to the talk page to be integrated later, I guess. Anyway, Dr. MacIntyre has stated on their user page that he wishes to create a page that resolves what he calls "Arrow's paradox" (well, he says a few things, you can read it yourself). I don't know if any of you are very familiar with his work - I'm not - (assuming this is the Dr. MacIntyre), but his contributions to game theory is largely along these lines. Umm, I guess I'm bringing this to your attention because the user could probably use our help in this project (naming said article, formatting, casting references, support if things become frustrating, etc). Best, Smmurphy( Talk) 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the two months Nash equilibrium have been largely a bust (*bows head in shame*). Why don't we rotate to another article and put NE back on the list and work on it later? I put common knowledge (logic) on the list, because I'm taking a class on it right now. But I'll work on that myself either way, would folks prefer strategic move or perhaps outcome (game theory)? --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure regulars here have already noticed that I have been questioning the good article status of several Game Theory articles. I came to this because the most obvious weak GAs within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics are Best response and Nash equilibrium, and I think there is some agreement here that the latter is not currently GA standard. I have noticed (and others have too) a tendency in Game Theory articles to assume that the reader has read other articles, such as Prisoners dilemma and Stag hunt, and so understands the jargon of game theory. This really needs to be fixed, in my opinion, since most game theory articles could be much more accessible than they currently are.
I realise I may not be making myself very popular by saying this, but this project has been rather quiet recently, so I hope I might provide some incentive to reinvigorate it. Geometry guy 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Chicken (game) is the one which I am least sure about, which is why I have listed it at good article review for wider opinion. (I did this one first by the way.) For the others, I only mention GA/R to draw attention to the opportunity to contest my assessment. I thought about listing them all there, but decided to take responsibility (and the flak) myself. For three of them, it is not clear that they should have been listed (the reviews are superficial or non-existent). As for Nash equilibrium, why did no one here delist it in February? If it is agreed that an article is not GA, it should not be listed as GA. GA isn't a competition, it is a benchmark. I'm not complaining, I am assessing. You have all the time in the world to improve articles, but they should not be listed as GA before they meet the criteria. Geometry guy 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have put up Evolutionarily stable strategy for collaboration of the month (August). It was once a WP:GA (see above) and should not be hard to get it up to par. I probably won't be able to contribute too much until mid August, but perhaps others would like to. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been removing the gametheory project template from the talk pages of redirects. It's just crossed my mind that maybe I should just leave them there. Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Pete.Hurd 03:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
This page is an Archive of the discussions from
WikiProject Game theory talk page (Discussion page).
![]() |
---|
Aloha - Happy new year to everyone. Some time ago, User:Trialsanderrors suggested a collaboration of the week sort of thing. I think this would be a good idea, although given the time I have to dedicate, perhaps a collaboration of the month or collaboration of the fortnight might be better. If anyone thinks this might be a good idea, I'll set it up. Probably we'll just make a list of pages and rotate the list every month/fortnight. Sound cool? --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 21:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay we're up and running with a collaboration for the month, including spiffy new blue box. Who can resist contributing now? Add whatever you like to the list for future collaborations. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 00:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I havn't been working here much recently, and I see that the average game theory article looks a lot better than it did even a few months ago. I just made a start on an article for risk dominance, but it isn't too pretty (nor is it too comprehensible, I think). Plus, it might not even be very correct. So I'm wondering (hoping?) that someone can come look at it and make any quick/easy fixes. Also, I couldn't find an extension of the concept to large games, and the article also needs a discussion of its application to evolutionary games (both things that I will try to do later, but I thought I'd mention here in case someone else was looking for something to do). Thanks, Smmurphy( Talk) 19:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello all - I have updated the collaboration of the month for February. I think the January collaboration went well. I know the article still needs some work, but I think the article(s) are much improved. However, we now have no new articles for the months to come. Please add any article that you think needs some TLC to the list. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 20:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Are we done with risk dominance? If so we should wrap it up by deciding whether we need two articles, and what the name of the article/s should be ("dominance" or "dominant equilibrium"). ~ trialsanderrors 01:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I created this category and replaced some uses of Category:Evolutionary dynamics with it. Feel free to revert if there is a meaningful difference between the two. ~ trialsanderrors 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Anyone got a good image for this? I'm still using the one from econ-stub. Nothing in game tree or extensive form game looks usable. ~ trialsanderrors 19:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
hey, there seems to be two pages-one topic: Neumann-Morgenstern utility and Expected utility hypothesis, with a mention at Utility#Expected utility. What do you think? I've put in a mergeto/from in the direction of Expected utility hypothesis... Smmurphy( Talk) 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that there wasn't an article for division game. I created a stub, but I'm guessing that it already exists elsewhere, right? Its too late for me to try to guess what other names the game might have. Also, is it major enough to get a spot in the GT template? I see it as the "brother" of the ultimatum game, and equally fundamental. Smmurphy( Talk) 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
This was mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics:
I did a couple letters (T-Z)... Smmurphy( Talk) 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to leave NE for the Collaboration for April. I really haven't had a chance to edit it, and it doesn't look like others have really either. I don't know if I'll have more time in April than I did in March but perhaps others will. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 05:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Anybody else noticed b:Introduction to Game Theory? Not that I have any extra time lying around to work on this project, but since WikiBooks is also a GFDL project, we might be able to steal (I mean use) some material if we find it useful. Perhaps others might be interested too... --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 04:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the article outcome (game theory), which is a rather pathetic stub. Don't we already have an article on this somewhere that this could redirect to? Smmurphy( Talk) 21:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
FYI in cooperative game theory outcome is a payoff-configuration/partition pair. Koczy 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Some of you might have noticed recent edits made to Arrow's impossibility theorem by User:Dr. I .D. A. MacIntyre. The edits were out of place and poorly formatted, and have been moved to the talk page to be integrated later, I guess. Anyway, Dr. MacIntyre has stated on their user page that he wishes to create a page that resolves what he calls "Arrow's paradox" (well, he says a few things, you can read it yourself). I don't know if any of you are very familiar with his work - I'm not - (assuming this is the Dr. MacIntyre), but his contributions to game theory is largely along these lines. Umm, I guess I'm bringing this to your attention because the user could probably use our help in this project (naming said article, formatting, casting references, support if things become frustrating, etc). Best, Smmurphy( Talk) 02:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the two months Nash equilibrium have been largely a bust (*bows head in shame*). Why don't we rotate to another article and put NE back on the list and work on it later? I put common knowledge (logic) on the list, because I'm taking a class on it right now. But I'll work on that myself either way, would folks prefer strategic move or perhaps outcome (game theory)? --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 05:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure regulars here have already noticed that I have been questioning the good article status of several Game Theory articles. I came to this because the most obvious weak GAs within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics are Best response and Nash equilibrium, and I think there is some agreement here that the latter is not currently GA standard. I have noticed (and others have too) a tendency in Game Theory articles to assume that the reader has read other articles, such as Prisoners dilemma and Stag hunt, and so understands the jargon of game theory. This really needs to be fixed, in my opinion, since most game theory articles could be much more accessible than they currently are.
I realise I may not be making myself very popular by saying this, but this project has been rather quiet recently, so I hope I might provide some incentive to reinvigorate it. Geometry guy 22:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Chicken (game) is the one which I am least sure about, which is why I have listed it at good article review for wider opinion. (I did this one first by the way.) For the others, I only mention GA/R to draw attention to the opportunity to contest my assessment. I thought about listing them all there, but decided to take responsibility (and the flak) myself. For three of them, it is not clear that they should have been listed (the reviews are superficial or non-existent). As for Nash equilibrium, why did no one here delist it in February? If it is agreed that an article is not GA, it should not be listed as GA. GA isn't a competition, it is a benchmark. I'm not complaining, I am assessing. You have all the time in the world to improve articles, but they should not be listed as GA before they meet the criteria. Geometry guy 11:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have put up Evolutionarily stable strategy for collaboration of the month (August). It was once a WP:GA (see above) and should not be hard to get it up to par. I probably won't be able to contribute too much until mid August, but perhaps others would like to. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 17:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been removing the gametheory project template from the talk pages of redirects. It's just crossed my mind that maybe I should just leave them there. Thoughts? Questions? Comments? Pete.Hurd 03:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)