Talk:Game theory

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleGame theory is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 13, 2006.
Article milestones
November 13, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 4, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
March 18, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Quantum game theory[edit]

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

"Perfect information and imperfect information" section[edit]

This seems to mix everything up. I'd suggest a rewrite like this, but I don't feel qualified to change it.

Perfect information and imperfect information Main article: Perfect information

An important subset of sequential games consists of games of perfect information. A game is one of perfect information if all players know the moves previously made by all other players. Thus, only sequential games can be games of perfect information because players in simultaneous games do not know the actions of the other players. Interesting examples of perfect-information games include the ultimatum game and centipede game. Recreational games of perfect information games include chess, go and mancala.

Perfect information is often confused with complete information, which is a similar concept. See: (provide a link to one place where notion is discussed well...)

Most games studied in game theory are imperfect-information games. Many card games are games of imperfect information, such as poker or contract bridge. Games of incomplete information can be reduced, however, to games of imperfect information by introducing "moves by nature" (Leyton-Brown & Shoham

GT in epidemiology[edit]

In this edit I partially restored this edit which was reverted in this edit. A review article of the use of tool X in field Y is exactly the correct type of WP:RS to establish a claim of the form "X is a commonly used tool in Y field". I also added in coverage in the popular media for good measure. It certainly looks to me like game theory is used enough in epidemiology to warrant including a section about it in this article. The second half of the material that was reverted, in contrast, is WP:UNDUE focus on a single paper for inclusion in a general encyclopedia article on game theory, and I have not restored that. - Astrophobe (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobel Prizes[edit]

"As of 2014, with the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences going to game theorist Jean Tirole, eleven game theorists have won the economics Nobel Prize. John Maynard Smith was awarded the Crafoord Prize for his application of evolutionary game theory."

This is pretty out of date. If I'm not mistaken the 2016 and 2020 Nobel Prizes were awarded for work in Game Theory. If someone is able to confirm this understanding, I suggest an edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction should mention John Nash[edit]

The introduction mentions von Neumann and Morgenstern, but doesn't mention John Nash or Nash equilibria. It probably should, though. Macoroni (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]