#18536: Solvers for constant sum games
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: ptigwe | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-6.8
Component: game theory | Resolution:
Keywords: Game Theory, | Merged in:
Gambit, Zero-sum game Constant | Reviewers: Karl-Dieter Crisman
Sum Game, Normal Form Games | Work issues:
Authors: Tobenna P. Igwe | Commit:
Report Upstream: N/A | a24c7dd1ebd473b679fe070c173e7c824138e3d2
Branch: | Stopgaps:
u/ptigwe/gt_extension |
Dependencies: |
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by kcrisman):
> This is certainly due to me, it happened as a result of moving the
documentation that was there to the front matter, I think I perhaps did
not fully understand :) Perhaps a ticket could be opened about the
documentation (as Tobenna suggested towards the end of gsoc) that fully
describes what we want the docs to look like :)
Actually, I'll open it now and set it to sage-pending so we don't forget.
#18609.
> > > I think it's worth pointing out somewhere in the documentation that
the LP approach will give ''one'' NE but not ''all'' of them, should there
be more than one. (Constant-sum games can have more than one NE, right?
I guess the trivial game is an example.)
> > OK.
>
> I think it could be worth doctesting also? (So showing that all
equilibria are find by some algorithms and not by LP etc...)
Okay, so we're agreed on this.
Another small point - no maximization here.
{{{
if algorithm.startswith('lp-'):
return self._solve_LP(solver=algorithm[3:])
}}}
Of course, at some point this is pedantic if you are planning on removing
it - but actually, given that it pre-existed this ticket, I guess you'll
have to deprecate that keyword.
> > You should add an example testing the maximization=False
> There's currently one at the start of obtain_nash, showing that it's
possible for the equilibrium found could be different. Do you want me to
do something similar for all the methods, or would the one be enough?
What I meant was one for the new LP solver functionality.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/18536#comment:20>
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.
