Area 51 » Science

105

followers

Follow It!

33 Example Questions (1 closed)

active oldest votes

up vote 10 down vote

added by Merbs Nov 25 '12 at 10:09

An Algorithmic question – Merbs Nov 27 '12 at 13:12

up vote 10 down vote

added by Michael Greinecker Nov 27 '12 at 21:23

up vote 10 down vote

added by Michael Greinecker Nov 27 '12 at 21:26

up vote 10 down vote

added by Edward Ruchevits Dec 1 '12 at 0:29

This is a great question to understand the answer to, but not one that an expert (today) would ask. A step up would be "In games with multiple Nash equilbria, what determines which one the game converges to?" though that's actually akin to Greinecker's question "Can one formalize Schelling's idea of focal points?" and my question "Under what circumstances does fictitious play converge?" A CS question you could ask is "What is the complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium?" or "What is the complexity of determining if multiple Nash equilibria exist?" – Merbs Dec 2 '12 at 15:51

up vote 10 down vote

added by Edward Ruchevits Dec 2 '12 at 14:11

As phrased, this is an encyclopedic question, best served by Wikipeda; a better question might be "How does Iterated Elimination of Strictly Dominated Strategies (IESDS) work? ", but then it would still be a basic question (which is totally acceptable). To make this question exemplary though, you might want to ask " How does IESDS work in a distributed decision making environment?" – Merbs Dec 2 '12 at 15:27

up vote 10 down vote

added by ronalchn Dec 9 '12 at 2:27

<comments removed> Please do not use comments to answer these questions. This proposal is not part of a Q&A site, and the task at hand is to help define what is on and off topic for a site. Comments are here to help improve the questions; not to answer them. See What is the rationale for deleting answers? Thank you. – Robert Cartaino♦ Apr 28 at 16:52

up vote 10 down vote

added by Merbs Dec 9 '12 at 7:43

given m people, n alternatives, and a distribution over preferences. – Merbs Dec 9 '12 at 7:43

up vote 10 down vote

added by Joe Z. Dec 27 '12 at 0:33

up vote 10 down vote

added by Joe Z. Jan 19 at 15:26

up vote 10 down vote

added by Artem Kaznatcheev Feb 26 at 6:59

up vote 10 down vote

added by markovchain Mar 5 at 15:54

up vote 10 down vote

added by Gugg Mar 6 at 22:52

up vote 10 down vote

added by Gugg Mar 6 at 23:30

up vote 9 down vote

added by Kevin C Apr 13 at 18:59

up vote 7 down vote

added by wiwh Mar 6 at 10:10

up vote 6 down vote

added by Merbs Nov 24 '12 at 16:03

A Behavioral question (in that its focus is learning) – Merbs Nov 27 '12 at 13:07

Just to evaluate my own question, this is a rather basic question, in that it's answered on the Wiki page. It's difficult to find a balance between asking a question that some large fraction of people can appreciate and one that is research-level, yet not P vs. NP open (popular yet unsolved). – Merbs Dec 2 '12 at 15:58

up vote 6 down vote

added by Merbs Dec 9 '12 at 7:44

up vote 6 down vote

added by Arborvitae Mar 19 at 15:38

closed as not constructive by bosco, Camil Staps, Robert Cartaino♦ Apr 28 at 16:53

This question is not a good fit to our Q&A format. We expect answers to generally involve facts, references, or specific expertise; this question will likely solicit opinion, debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion.

Seems considerably vague, akin to asking, "What is a real-life example of Physics in action?" at physics.stackexchange.com . – bosco Apr 24 at 20:41

up vote 6 down vote

added by pnp Apr 18 at 9:22

	Insufficiently specific. Game Theoretic Modelling is a tool for theory building, so this is akin to asking "What are the available tools for screwdrivers?" I suspect the intended question here was "What software can assist Game Theoretic Modelling?" – Tony May 7 at 20:45
	@Tony Kindly have a look at Gambit and QtxGame. These quaify as 'Tools' or no? I can change the language if others agree with you – pnp May 8 at 7:51
	I agree that software for game theory IS a tool. I claim this question is insufficiently specific because I can't think of any possible answers that AREN'T software, and I suspect the desired answer is a list of software and nothing more. – Tony May 8 at 21:51

up vote 4 down vote

added by Kevin C Apr 14 at 9:59

up vote 3 down vote

added by Mark Booth Nov 28 '12 at 10:23

I'm not certain this belongs here: it sounds like more programming than actual game theory. Maybe move to StackOverflow? – Tony May 7 at 20:52

up vote 2 down vote

added by Merbs Nov 24 '12 at 16:03

A Social Choice question – Merbs Nov 27 '12 at 13:06

up vote 2 down vote

added by igor Apr 14 at 9:51

up vote 1 down vote

added by Edward Ruchevits Dec 2 '12 at 14:12

I'm not personally against polling questions, but StackExchange tends to support the philosophy that Real Questions Have Answers and this question doesn't. If asked carefully and answered thoughfully, I think this might be a popular question, but not a representative question. Try asking a specific question, like "Do the results from the Swedish Lowest Unique Positive Integer (LUPI) game match theoretical predictions? – Merbs Dec 2 '12 at 15:12

MathOverflow gets this sort of question on occasion: while not representative, I think it certainly fits here. Answers should list fields where Game Theory finds applications, along with a brief explanation and further reference. – josh Feb 21 at 15:08

@josh: I'm afraid the list might just be too long, as the OP asks for applications in "real life". – Kevin C Apr 14 at 9:52

up vote 1 down vote

added by wiwh Mar 6 at 10:21

What do you mean by a "truly dynamic approach"? – Kevin C Apr 14 at 9:54

What is commonly referred to as "dynamic game theory" (be it learning theory, repeated games, ...) sets out to find an equilibrium path. Although it considers different periods in time, this approach is not dynamic per se: it is a static approach to dynamic games. Hence my question, how can we have a "truly dynamic" approach? (e.g. an analytic approach cannot be "truly dynamic"). A "truly dynamic" approach would be useful in applications of bounded rationality, for instance. – wiwh Apr 25 at 7:51

up vote 1 down vote

added by steadyfish Apr 5 at 19:54

up vote 1 down vote

added by Popopo Apr 19 at 15:59

up vote 1 down vote

added by warren May 1 at 0:57

It doesn't. This Question should be closed as not relevant. Game Theory is based on Rational Choice Theory, which is founded on the notion that players will be rational. If they aren't, then game theory loses all usefulness. – Tony May 2 at 3:09

@Tony: I cannot fully agree with what you said. I think one has to be careful about what the term "rationality" refers to. In fact, a whole body of literature on bounded rationality and behavioral economics addresses precisely this question. Non-rationality can be interpreted, for instance, as bounded memory (in the context of repeated games), or as level-K thinking (where K is finite), or as certain "behavioral types", etc. Thus, although the question in its current form is somewhat vague, I don't think that it's totally irrelevant/off topic. – Kevin C May 3 at 6:26

OK, so perhaps closing it would be a little extreme. However, I would argue that most of Behavioral Economics (which is generally empirical in nature) lies outside the realm of Game Theory (which is inherently formal, i.e. non-empirical modeling). So the question becomes whether refutations of Game Theory are within the scope of this QA board. Which they definitely should be. There--you've talked me into it. – Tony May 3 at 20:52