#16333: Game Theory: Build class for normal form games as well as ability to
obtain
Nash equilibria
--------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: vinceknight | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: PLEASE CHANGE | Resolution:
Keywords: Game Theory, Normal Form Games | Merged in:
Authors: | Reviewers:
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
--------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Comment (by kcrisman):
> This is what I would think as best way to go (as stated in Gambit FAQ:
lrs is more robust) but that paper (pointed out by kcrisman) which points
at Gambit will be super useful to evaluate the best way to go.
Where is this FAQ? I couldn't find it easily.
----
Thinking out loud below:
* lrs seems to just be about polytopes - useful, to be sure, but I'm just
wondering whether reinventing the entire rest of the Gambit wheel is a
great idea. For instance, Gambit's !McKelvey was THE !McKelvey. How much
of lrs do we really need for finding equilibria, as opposed to all the
other many things one does in game theory?
* However, Gambit doesn't talk about cooperative or matching game theory
(tickets #16332, #16331)
* Maybe it would be worth talking to the Gambit folks
[https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Cardiff+University,+Cardiff,+United+Kingdom+to+University+of+East+Anglia,+Norwich,+United+Kingdom&saddr=Cardiff+University,+Cardiff,+United+Kingdom&daddr=University+of+East+Anglia,+Norwich,+United+Kingdom&hl=en&sll=42.515595,-70.847233&sspn=0.092114,0.149517&geocode=FaOfEQMdkH7P_yHKInGeCcdt4CmvKwE2vRxuSDHKInGeCcdt4A%3BFWLyIgMdiOgSACFz5UQH8Hu5uSkBWIB72ODZRzFz5UQH8Hu5uQ&oq=Cardiff+University,+Cardiff,+United+Kingdom+to+university+of+east+a&t=h&z=8
directly] about how/whether any common work would be useful? Especially
if we could both use the same formats (if they are useful formats) -
having a common base would be very valuable, especially as other software
doesn't seem to have gotten into a standard format or even into game
theory at all.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16333#comment:6>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
