Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-categories 2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive constructive-mathematics cosmology definitions deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry differential-topology digraphs duality education elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory subobject superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorjulesh
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2019

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2019

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorjulesh
    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2019

    Got it, thanks

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorjulesh
    • CommentTime7 days ago

    Added some good solid speculation about homotopical game theory

    diff, v5, current

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorGuest
    • CommentTime4 days ago
    This seems utterly superficial. Other than sharing the word "homotopy" I don't see any connection. I would rather the nlab not be filled with wild speculation since it is already struggling to back many claims it is making. Perhaps I am being an old hermit, but I have yet to see what "applications" applied category theory has other than saying things we know in an obfuscated way.
    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    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?

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTime4 days ago

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMarc
    • CommentTime2 days ago

    The link to the Cockett et. al. paper threw an error, so I changed it and also completed the author list

    diff, v6, current

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorRichard Williamson
    • CommentTime2 days ago
    • (edited 2 days ago)

    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!

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTime2 days ago

    Re #9: is that a thing? I’d never heard “good solid” as an expression.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTime2 days ago

    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.

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTime2 days ago

    Looking at the paper, the authors use a result of Browder about fixed points of maps [0,1]×SS[0,1] \times S\to S for compact convex SS\subset \mathbb{R}. Looks more like straight-up topology together with optimisation algorithms to me.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTime1 day ago

    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?

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)