jordan Posted October 29, 2004 Share Posted October 29, 2004 I recently watched the movie again and was curious if anyone has studied John Nash's theory more in-depth. Can anyone explain exactly what the theory predicts and/or how it works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 30, 2004 Share Posted October 30, 2004 I wouldn't even begin to try, but if you google "John Nash" there are host of good links. I found this description of game theory useful: Game theory studies interactive decision-making, where the outcome for each participant or "player" depends on the actions of all. If you are a player in such a game, when choosing your course of action or "strategy" you must take into account the choices of others. But in thinking about their choices, you must recognize that they are thinking about yours, and in turn trying to take into account your thinking about their thinking, and so on. from - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/nash/sfeature/sf_dixit.html von Neumann and others had already looked at situations where there were winners and losers. (I think its called a zero sum situation.) Nash was the first to examine, and explain, situations where all of the participants could win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted October 30, 2004 Author Share Posted October 30, 2004 The link looks good. I'm heading off to read it now. Thanks. The main problem I had is that a google search didn't give any great answers. It gave me an idea of what was going on, but there were a few conflicting stories. One said that it was predicting an opponents move in a game (like chess). But the movie made it out to be more related to economics/everybody wins. I wasn't sure exactly which it is or if it's a bit of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 It's both. The way Nash and others formalised the inter-active decision process, focused on the things that are common between games and economic systems. We know that games are a key aspect of childhood and form a means of learning. There is that expression, now a cliche, Life isn't a rehearsal. That's true, but games are a rehearsal. Because games are more structured than real life, it is easier to analyse them, then to extend what has been learnt to more complex and realistic situations. Government Health Warning: I know nothing about game theory, never saw the film, and am throwing out the thoughts above as a means of teaching myself. Caveat emptor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 Nash equilibrium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted November 6, 2004 Share Posted November 6, 2004 If you care to read the reference I gave in Post #2 you will find the following: The theory constructs a notion of "equilibrium," to which the complex chain of thinking about thinking could converge. Then the strategies of all players would be mutually consistent in the sense that each would be choosing his or her best response to the choices of the others. For such a theory to be useful, the equilibrium it posits should exist. Nash used novel mathematical techniques to prove the existence of equilibrium in a very general class of games. This paved the way for applications. Biologists have even used the notion of Nash equilibrium to formulate the idea of evolutionary stability. The article then continues with some examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
violetendncy Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Hi, from what I've read, It's basically the theory of decision making in games... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artorius Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 read the article,and seen the film...however regarding the film,i was more interested in the twisting plot of his insanity than his theory(which based on the article isnt a theory after all,as we are all players in the game of life and have used the dinamics of the theory in everyday scenarios.Simply pointing out mathematically something which one takes for granted isnt ground breaking).. eg i excel at almost every strategy games and sports,unknowingly using his mathematical formula how nice.I'd whoop his ass at chess!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Simply pointing out mathematically something which one takes for granted isnt ground breaking).. When it is buried so deeply in behavioural patterns that nobody has noticed it before' date=' or been able to characterise it with precision, then it is groundbreaking. Many of the great ideas of science are simple and obvious once a genius has pointed them out. eg i excel at almost every strategy games and sports,unknowingly using his mathematical formula how nice.I'd whoop his ass at chess!! Dead men don't wear plaid.....or play chess. So it should be a walkover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artorius Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 i dont think so ophi...i play chess with Nash everynight,and help him crack secret codes...oh dear...your saying his dead !!..and your..YOUR not working for them!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 God, ABM is a load of tosh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 "God, ABM is a load of tosh." Amen to that! When you see "based on a true story" at the beginning of this type of a movie, you should usually stand up and throw the film out of your window, the higher you live the better. :> "Dead men don't wear plaid.....or play chess. So it should be a walkover." Huh? Since when was John F. Nash dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 Huh? Since when was John F. Nash dead?Three possibilities: I like to provoke Artorius with obviously invalid statements. For the second time in two months I didn't check my facts before posting. Both of the above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 "Three possibilities: I like to provoke Artorius with obviously invalid statements. For the second time in two months I didn't check my facts before posting. Both of the above." Two times in two months?! Oh dear, you're really losing it. And provoking people is not cool. Unless you're provoking them to do something incredibly stupid that will make us all laugh. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 And provoking people is not cool. Unless you're provoking them to do something incredibly stupid that will make us all laugh. )It was [only?] Artorius. He would be disappointed if I didn't. And he's been making sense lately, so it becomes more challenging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt grime Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Hey! don't provoke a guy who's figured out, apparently, how to force a win at chess, as well as nec and suff conds to solve all games. Of course, that is about te same as showing p=np so maybe he can get a million dollars. Mind you, I'd've expected such a genius to know the difference between "your" and "you're". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artorius Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Hey! don't provoke a guy who's figured out' date=' apparently, how to force a win at chess, as well as nec and suff conds to solve all games. Of course, that is about te same as showing p=np so maybe he can get a million dollars. Mind you, I'd've expected such a genius to know the difference between "your" and "you're".[/quote']When being critical of grammer and spelling in other peoples posts,it helps if one starts with their own!!! Besides you have to consider the nationality of the poster.Im English,so we dont care how we speak or spell...its our bloody language m8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Speak for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 "Speak for yourself." Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Sayo! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Well done Gilded. That's the first post on this forum that has literally made me laugh out loud, as opposed to a smile and a quiet chuckle. Still laughing now. In fact you've made me forget how I was going to provoke Artorius again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt grime Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Ah, but I'm not claiming to be a genius, Artotius. I am English, but incredibly lazy at typing. And I can spell grammar, when I feel like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 When being critical of grammer and spelling in other peoples posts,it helps if one starts with their own!!! Besides you have to consider the nationality of the poster.Im English,so we dont care how we speak or spell...its our bloody language m8.you know what mate? considering you spelt grammAr wrong you can hardly talk yourself! and whilst it might be "our" as in the english's language it is not YOURs to use as you want - so please dont abuse it or i will be forced to take further action! otha thn at plz dnt b ofended by th't im j'st in won of those mooods 2day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 Im English......Accepted. So why have you adopted the name of a second Century Roman military commander from Campania? You must know he has been discredited as the historical basis of the Arthurian legends.(To get this back on topic your counter to this attack should employ some basic Games Theory.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilded Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 "you know what mate? considering you splet grammAr wrong you can hardly talk yourself!" This is getting really, really awkward with people spelling even "spelt" wrong. Must... get... back... on... topic... before... grammar... overdose. "Well done Gilded. That's the first post on this forum that has literally made me laugh out loud, as opposed to a smile and a quiet chuckle. Still laughing now. In fact you've made me forget how I was going to provoke Artorius again." Well, I'm happy you liked it. Those who don't know or who have forgot about Hitler & his merry fellows didn't probably get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I also remember which side you Finns were on .... and why. You are the only enemy Britain ever had that we never attacked. Must have been application of Games Theory. (That was an effort, but I think we've got it back on topic.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now