Talk:Zero-sum game/Archives/2012

flaw
There is a flaw near the beginning of the article in that zero-sum-games and non-zero-sum-games are described as the same thing in different paragraphs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madzeraljoe (talk • contribs) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

economics of a purely hunter/gatherer society
''The economics of a purely hunter/gatherer society have zero-sum properties because the supply of goods such as food is fixed by what nature has to offer. If one person suceeds in obtaining food, there is less food to go around for everyone else, so that one person's benefit implies a cost to others.''


 * (I disagree. This assumes that the hunter/gatherers gather all of nature's resources. In truth they're in competition with other animals and even bacteria, and can collect more or better food via greater effort. --Belltower)


 * I agree with Belltower. Furthermore, hunter-gatherer societies don't have refrigerators and usually don't have other methods of saving perishable food, notably meat. If a hunter kills an animal that is too large for him to eat before it goes bad, it makes sense for him to share the meat with other members of his band. He will lose nothing, they will gain food, and he will gain their gratitude and increased social status. (All of this would be true if the hunter were a she, but I want to avoid tiresome grammatical constructions.) Therefore at least in some circumstances the economics is clearly non-zero sum. -- Old Nick 14:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Economics is a Zero-sum game
Economics is a Zero-sum game, what happens is this: one group of more expensive workers is displaced for larger group of cheaper workers in markets that do not operate the same. Yet the cost of living of the displaced workers home market is enormous because of differences in market structures and regulations, the religious capitalist boot licking academics trying to hide it are peddling lies. Why do you think there are wars? because there is only a finite amount of land and precious resources, such as oil, to go around. America didn't invade IRAQ to liberate the IRAQI's and bring democracy, thats for damn sure.


 * The reason the money supply is controlled is to keep consumption of finite resources in check and keep inflation from spiraling out of control. Next you need money to make money, and frequently only the richest people have the money to start businesses, so the rich get to dictate the terms of wages to the worker because the worker is not perpetually resource independent like a rich person is, rich people are insulated against downturns, most regular people are not, one wrong down in an investment or sudden economic downturn in an industry they work and they are up shit creek.  Startup costs for most businesses are enormous -- also known as barrier to entry.  Power re-inforces itself in a capitalist system, the people at the top stay at the top.  I'd like to know how many rich people went bankrupt compared to the rest of the population, and you'll have your answer.

more hunter/gatherer
I also disagree, if hunter-gatherers cooperate as a hunting pack they have more food per person than if they would hunt individually. I also think that this article should not be under 'Zero-sum' but under 'Zero-sum game' as the word is hardly used in any other context. You can then start the article with the more logical "A zero-sum game is a game where ..." -- JanHidders

mating being zero sum
The comment about mating being zero sum is also not strictly accurate since many species allow multiple fathers. -- TedDunning
 * Genetically you can have only one father! (although now medicine has made two mothers possible.)
 * Yes, but it is possible for a single female to be bearing the offspring of more than one male at a single time. It's even happened with humans!  Also, mating doesn't always lead to pregnancy, so multiple partners can increase the reproduction rate in the aggregate. --Belltower

Tit for Tat

 * The optimal strategy for non-zero-sum games is Tit for Tat.

This is completely and utterly false even for repeated prisoner's dillema! True, for some repeated games this is a very good strategy, assuming many other players are ready to cooperate. But even in this game, almost any "bad boy" strategy will kick tit for tat.
 * er, that's not actually right, unless you have managed to falsify Robert Axelrod's findings (in which case, congratulations - a Nobel prize coming your way, and probably a sainthood, as not only have you rewritten game theory, you've also managed to falsify evolution, so the Pope will be pleased). In iterated prisoners' dilemmas, "bad boy" strategies invariably do worse than "good boy" strategies - see Richard Dawkins, Robert Axelrod, Daniel Dennett, Carl Sagan et al, ad nauseam, for a thorough analysis. Tit for tat is the archetypal good boy strategy. If the defectors won, we'd still be amoebas in a primordial soup.


 * In any case the tit-for-tat remark, as currently rendered, didn't make any sense in the context so I have deleted it. ElectricRay 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I read recently (unfortunately I don't remember where) that a slightly better strategy than TIT FOR TAT has been found. I believe it's TIT FOR TAT with random cheats - or was it random niceness? If I run across it again, I'll post it here. -- Old Nick 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Complexity
The section about complexity is problematic because it does define the term complexity. My feeling is that said complexity just means that the interdependencies between activities and parties are so many that the human faculty cannot deal with them. So in an effort to analyze one situation it becomes hard to isolate it from the rest of the universe because of "complexity". That does not mean that the situation in question is non-zero-sum. The quote by Bill Clinton does not help a lot. When two economic interests strike what they call a win-win deal, it usually means that they have found a way of joining forces in the competition against others.

Also, the argument about non-zero-sum due to complexity, only serves the upper economic strata. They need a way to explain that their exuberant lifestyles does not imply a cost to the rest of us. First, they will tell you "It's not a zero sum game" and then they will explain the "trickle-down effect". Meanwhile Hennes & Mauritz supplier Goldfame pays 5 cents a t-shirt to their workers in Cambodia while your pension funds may be lost in an artificial bankruptcy.
 * Disagree here - this is pretty clearly non-zero sum, even as you describe it. The comparative advantage to H&M is obvious (as I'm sure you'd agree). The comparative advantage to the Cambodian worker (assuming he's being rational and not being compelled to contribute his labour) is that that 5c per shirt is a better return for his time than he'd get elsewhere (ie he's get 3c for the same time spend in the paddy field). ElectricRay 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-zero-sum economics?
Non-zero-sum economics? Come up with something solid, or suffer deletion! Geir Gundersen 12:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * agreed here - I have rewritten - briefly - and removed all the rubbish about farmers, futures, tit for tat etc, all of which looked highly original and pretty clearly wrong. ElectricRay 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Poker is not a zero-sum game
Poker is not a zero-sum game. You have to take in mind that the house takes a cut. This means the aggregate of what the players walk away with is less than they brought. I made mention of this in the article.

more complexity
The section "Complexity and non-zero-sum" - Should this be "Society and non-zero-sum ???". The section currently explains more on complexity in society

bad English
The sentence "Optimal strategies may be chosen for two-player zero-sum games by using minimax strategies" is bad English ("strategies may be chosen by using strategies") and it is also a tautology: An "optimal strategy" for a two-player zero-sum game is defined to be a minimax strategy. It may or may not be "optimal" against particular opponents. I am changing the sentence to "Nash equilibria of two-player zero-sum games are exactly pairs of minimax strategies" Bromille 12:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that the phrase: "it is impossible for both players to win"(line 3) should be removed. This statement is true, but it is not very accurate becouse there is draw in Chess and Go (unlike other games). It can confuse readers who are not familiar with these games.

Economics and zero-sum
This section could use some example. Free trade comes to mind. Mabybe some historical references, and some mention of non-zero sum as the justification for things like NAFTA and the WTO Bakerstmd 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

poker confusing
The bit about poker maybe being zero-sum, maybe not, seems more confusing that helpful. I suppose it's true, but does it help? Cretog8 (talk) 03:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

conflict game
"generally, any game where all strategies are Pareto optimal is called a conflict game" OK, it has a citation, but conflict game doesn't seem like a standard term to me. Cretog8 (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

poker with pleasure in the second paragraph
The second paragraph seems to be introducing non-zero-sum games - why is "poker with pleasure" there? Even chess with pleasure would be non-zero-sum. Isn't that a bad example? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.232.81 (talk) 08:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're looking at. There doesn't seem to be a mention of poker. ? C RETOG 8(t/c) 15:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

requested move
Discussion about the page move is underway at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Game_theory suggest further comments be made there. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll be redundant here to the comments I made there. It was pointed out that there's a separate Zero-sum problem in mathematics. Nonetheless, the game-theory use of "zero-sum" is by far the primary use of the term, which is the guideline for disambiguation. So, I support the move back. C RETOG 8(t/c) 06:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

incorrect example
The section under Psychology appears to describe a negative sum game not a zero sum game.radek (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Renamed to zero-sum game
The presentation along the lines of "zero-sum" adjective/property as something common to zero-sum games and "zero-sum situations" was rather silly, if not WP:OR. It was an overly defensive way of saying "this model applies to more than toy games" (as with all game theory), but you can say that (and even reference it to a WP:RS, e.g. K. Binmore, p. 4) without resorting to silly games in the article name. And, yes, zero sum and zero-sum zero–sum should redirect here, because this article describes the common meaning associated with those adjectives. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And heck, Binmore even says. not strictly about zero-sum games, but fun to read and relevant in this situation (pun intended) : It shouldn’t be surprising that game theory has found ready application in economics. The dismal science is supposedly about the allocation of scarce resources. If resources are scarce, it is because more people want them than can have them. Such a scenario creates all the necessary ingredients for a game. Moreover, neoclassical economists proceed on the assumption that people will act rationally in this game. Neoclassical economics is therefore essentially a branch of game theory. Economists who don’t realize this are like M. Jourdain in Molière’s Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, who was astonished to learn that he had been speaking prose all his life without knowing it.

Although economists have always have been closet game theorists, their progress was hampered by the fact that they didn’t have access to the tools provided by Von Neumann and Morgenstern when they invented modern game theory in 1944.

Ha, ha, haughty mathematicians. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

misunderstandings
I moved a snippet on "commonly misunderstood by critics of game theory" from the lead to its own section. I think it needs to be expanded a good bit to make sense, at which point a piece of the expanded section could be summarized in the lead. It's just not clear who the critics are, what the misunderstandings are, or why they're important. C RETOG 8(t/c) 16:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

what is the "Further Reading" from Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon? I cannot seem to find a publication anywhere. nor a mention in the synopsis of that 9/23/10 episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.33.107 (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Matrix games
I see you also deleted matrix game as synonym, but this seems to be unambiguously used that way by mathematicians for a (discrete) two-person zero-sum game. A google books search easily verifies this. Perhaps economists use the term more loosely? I have seen bimatrix or bilinear matrix games used to refer to non-zero-sum games, but not plain matrix game. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am fuzzy on the difference in terminology between mathematicians and economists, so maybe mathematicians reserve "matrix game" for zero-sum. But, yeah-if you do a Google search for nash equilibrium "matrix game", there will be a number of examples. This, for instance looks at coordination matrix games. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "coordination matrix games" rather than unqualified. I do think putting matrix game here, perhaps with a caveat that it's not universally used in this restricted sense is still useful. Matrix game. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The coordination thing was just one example. It could be qualified, but it would have to be qualified still further since while usually when people talk in these terms they're talking about a matrix game, there can be zero-sum games (such as cake cutting) which have continuous strategies, and so aren't matrix games. So, not all matrix games are zero-sum and not all zero-sum games are matrix games. It doesn't seem worth highlighting that term in the lead. C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Constant-sum vs. zero-sum
This is a common confusion, and it was sourced. If constant-sum is to be mentioned at all in the lead, it should be at least said (if not explained why) they are the same. Tijfo098 (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure we agree on the goal, it's just a matter of the phrasing. I thought mentioning that they're basically the same thing in the lead was worthwhile, without bothering to describe a pseudo-proof for why they're the same, which is better suited for the body of the article. Hmmm. Any other phrasing suggestions? C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "can be thought of more generally as" meas what? Equivalence? Inclusion? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Zero-sum games are a subset of constant-sum games, and any of the formal analysis which has been developed for zero-sum games can be easily applied to non-zero-sum constant-sum games. In semi-formal discussion, many people will say "zero-sum" when it's really non-zero constant-sum. But I wouldn't write that in the article... Phrasing tricky... I guess I'll have to come back to it sometime. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * At the very least, "cutting a cake" should probably not be used as an example if "constant-sum" is not going to be discussed. Cutting a cake is a good example of a constant-sum game, but it is not a zero-sum game.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzy98 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "Cutting a cake" could be conceptualized as a ZSG if n players involved 'felt' they "owned" or "were entitled to" 1/n proportion of the cake...further assuming that marginal utility of all cake pieces is the same, as the proportions changed (cutting) some people would become more satisfied and others less satisfied. If the players involved didn't own/expect ANY cake at the start of the game I think it would indeed be positive-constant-sum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psztorc (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)