Talk:Game theory/Archive 4

The first sentence is not good, and most of the intro is a real struggle
I don't know this topic. The whole intro is very hard to follow for the uninitiated. And in the 1st sentence using the phrase "rational decision-makers" without links is so broad and sounds more philosophical than mathematical. Is that the nature of this thing, still very amorphous even after ~60 years?

The 4th sentence would be a better start: "game theory applies to a wide range of behavioral relations, and is now an umbrella term for the science of logical decision making in humans, animals, and computers." But again, those three are very not equally "rational decision-makers" unless that distinction is made way more clear.

I do not know this topic so I can't suggest how to improve it, except to say it direly needs clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatfish (talk • contribs) 04:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Logical" and "rational" are both common words, and are synonyms. The precise meaning of the words is explained in the body of the article, as one would expect.  Can you try to articulate further what you think is unclear/difficult/whatever about the first paragraph?  --JBL (talk) 11:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with Lewis. —Collective Loosers (talk) 16:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential edit needed
A reader contacted Wikimedia ticket:2020091110005698 challenging the statement that:

The reader cited this paper, which does appear to state that the original theorem did not use the concept of fixed point theorems (specifically Brouwer fixed-point theorem) when he first published in 1928, although he may you used that concept in 1937 (although not in his 1944 book). I've only briefly scanned the paper but it sounds like it makes a decent case.

Can we discuss whether the source appears solid?

I'll note that the sentencing question does not appear to be sourced (subsequent sentences have sources but they appear to be supportive of different points).-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Who is Tina, and why is she wrong
I just DuckDuckGo'd 'Game Theory,' and in the Wikipedia description that shows up on the search page, the very first sentence starts with 'Tina you are wrong theory.' I looked at the history and there are about 5 snapshots where the first sentence with someone calling out this Tina about how wrong she is as the first few words. Just though it was strange and out of place. —Polynilium (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Quantum game theory
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
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