Timeline for Why was John Nash's 1950 Game Theory paper such a big deal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 20, 2019 at 17:04 | comment | added | Wlod AA | The post-Nash times (the economic events and economy experts' ignorance) show convincingly that the contents of the above Gil Kalai note is nothing but propaganda. – Wlod AA | |
| May 27, 2014 at 1:02 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @Joël I personally do no think Nash equilibrium is a good prediction for games that have never been played before even if there is a unique Nash equilibrium in the game. Everyone playing a best response to what everyone else does makes mainly sense if everyone has a good idea what everyone else does. | |
| May 26, 2014 at 23:32 | comment | added | Joël | @Michael It is a limitation to the usefulness of the concept to understand by itself concrete situations. When you observe a game in real life and try to make sense of what the different players do, or to predict what the players will do in the future in a game that has not been played before, then if you have several (in most cases, many) Nash equilibriums, you can't explain/predict what happens/will happen just by thos concept, but have to add some more analysis. | |
| May 26, 2014 at 14:36 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @Joël Why is non-uniqueness a problem? | |
| May 9, 2014 at 19:17 | comment | added | Joël | @Waldemar, Ah interesting. I will read the paper. | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 16:49 | history | edited | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 191 characters in body
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 16:09 | comment | added | Waldemar | @Joël The title is purposefully misleading - see the last paragraph of the article. In fact, the main idea is that game theory isn't useful to solve real-world problems. The article is written by a well-known researcher in the field. That's why I said that it is recommended if you want to warn over-enthusiastic people. | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 15:11 | comment | added | Joël | @Waldemar "How game theory will solve the problems of the Euro Bloc and stop Iranian nukes" hmm, that seems promising. One day I'll explain how I successfully used game theory to solve of my educational problem with my daughter (I needed Nash's concept because obviously it was not a zero sum game). | |
| Apr 24, 2014 at 12:25 | comment | added | Waldemar | @Joël If warning over-enthusiastic people is an issue, I recommend the following article by Ariel Rubinstein: faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/… | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 16:26 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | Dear Joël, I agree. To a large extent Nash equilibrium is a miracle concept leading to (almost) all the problems in applied game theory. It often represents genuine problems and shortcomings not only of economics theory but also of economics reality. Certainly this is something we, as mathematicians can celebrate and be enthusiastic about! | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 15:40 | comment | added | Joël | And yet, in practice, in each of the specific applications your paper mentions that I know of, the concept of Nash equilibrium has important shortcomings, to begin with its non-uniqueness. It is often refined or altogether replaced by other notion of :equilibrium", such as evolutionary stable strategy etc. I am not saying that the concept of Nash equilibrium is not important and beautiful, but I want to warn the over-enthusiastic mathematician that it is not the miracle concept clarifying all the problems in applied game theory. | |
| Apr 23, 2014 at 15:32 | history | answered | Gil Kalai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |