#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 vinceknight):
Replying to [comment:6 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.
Yeah all fair comments: I'll get in touch with the Gambit folk (they're a
very short drive from where I am) and see what they think. It was my
understanding that lrs 'kind of' exists within Sage already as some sort
of 'extra library'? Is that something I've made up? I think I've seen it
somewhere...
With regards to matching games and cooperative games they basically
involve very straightforward algorithms so I was just thinking of coding
those in Sage itself. A combination of cython and python should do the
trick and one of those would be a nice warm up exercise for my student. If
we decide to go the Gambit way we can still have all these things side by
side I suppose?
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/16333#comment:7>
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.
