Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
In the spirit of yesterday’s discussion about applied topics on the nLab, I have begun creating an article for game theory. The page previously existed just as a list of references, but there doesn’t seem to be an nForum thread about it.
Just a note about editing: the best way to make an announcement about changes to a page is to enter them in the “changes” text box below the edit area when you save the page. Then an nForum discussion thread will be automatically created, if it doesn’t exist already, and will be named so that future edit announcements will automatically go to the same thread and the “Discuss this page” link at the top of the page will go to that thread as well.
Got it, thanks
While I disagree with the overall opinion expressed in #5 (and especially the tone), in this particular case I do think that the connection to homotopy theory seems rather remote. I had a glance at the paper in question, and by the “homotopy method” it seems to refer to an essentially analytic/topological method for finding zeros or fixed points applied to examples in game theory, with practically nothing at all to do with what we call “homotopy theory”. What do you think, Jules: is there some deeper connection there that we’re missing?
I also find the second half of #5 overstated, but I would add to the first half that self-assessing one’s speculations as “good and solid” is almost always unconvincing for anyone else, and is likely to backfire.
I think “good solid” was probably not intended seriously, i.e. was probably intended to be similar to “good old” :-).
The “since” in the third sentence of #5 seems to be something of a non sequitur!
Re #9: is that a thing? I’d never heard “good solid” as an expression.
Regarding the ’homotopies’ of Herings and Peeters mentioned (in at least v5), I haven’t looked at the paper (in the journal Economic Theory), but I can imagine the authors just using topology, and jazzing up the name because one is moving continuously through a space of strategies, hence continuously deforming the strategy, which sounds like homotopy to the untrained ear.
Looking at the paper, the authors use a result of Browder about fixed points of maps for compact convex . Looks more like straight-up topology together with optimisation algorithms to me.
Okay, sounds like the speculation is not actually good or solid. (-: Is it worth retaining any mention of this paper on the page, or should we just delete the entire section?
1 to 13 of 13