Contents

Talk:Nash equilibrium

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nash equilibrium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 365 days

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Game theory Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Mathematics High‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles High This article has been rated as High-priority on the project's priority scale. Economics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Nash equilibrium was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: July 14, 2007.

The seminal journal paper in which Nash introduces what is now called the Nash equilibrium is "Non-Cooperative Games", John Nash, The Annals of Mathematics 54(2):286-295, 1951. It is available online to for a fee at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-486X%28195109%292%3A54%3A2%3C286%3ANG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G (many universities subscribe to JSTOR, so this link should work for at least some people beside me)

I'm not posting that directly to the page since I'm not sure whether it's OK to post links to for-pay resources. If it is OK, then please copy this to the article page.

--JP, Nov 10 2005

Well, I just did that yesterday, before reading this note. I will remove what I did right away. The article is available for a fee, but many universities and colleges provide free access to this and other for fee-services for their students.

--Zsolt, June 7, 2006

On the other hand, referencing the article itself, without a link to the for-fee online article is probably ok. So I just took out the link to that on-line version. This way people can still find it if they want to.

--Zsolt, June 7, 2006

I reverted an edit by anon, which added this setence to one section:

"choosing the best strategy given the strategies that others have chosen"

The sentence was out of context and imcomplete. If the anon would like to add it in context I'm sure it would be helpful. --Kzollman 17:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

As it turns out the entry Coordination game redirects here. Given the wide discussion of coordination games, I think it diserves its own entry. Would folks mind if I seeded the entry with the material here, and removed the redirect? thanks! -Kzollman 23:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Presently, nothing links to Coordination game other than daughters of Nash Equilibrium, and both of these actually give its pay-off matrix (Mixed strategy, Pure strategy). Therefore, there can't be a problem expanding that article from a redirect.

Cheers, Wragge 00:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Done! best --Kzollman 00:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

In my game theory class and text books we proved the existence of the Nash equilibrium using Kakutani fixed point theorem, a generalization of Brouwer fixed point theorem. Does anyone smarter than me know if Brower's is strong enough to prove the existence (as stated in the article)? --Kzollman 00:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed the proof. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 06:03, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Could or should we add a section on experimental results? For example there's some info (without citation) about coordination games on the experimental economics page. Can people who have more range and depth contribute more examples, etc?

PS I also feel like the sentence in the introduction about experimental economics needs citations and editing.

@Vgurvich I just wanted to say, it's fine for you to make edits referencing your own work. However, you do have to:

1. Make a note in the edit summary that you have a conflict of interest (are citing your own research), and
2. You have to show your research on this topic is important, by showing how it's been cited by other researchers (and ideally, appeared in textbooks discussing Nash equilibria, to establish this result is important enough to deserve being such a big chunk of the article).

I'll also suggest putting the proof in a spoilered box to avoid taking up too much space. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]