Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday October 05 2017, @06:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-free-rides dept.

John Nash's notion of equilibrium is ubiquitous in economic theory, but a new study shows that it is often impossible to reach efficiently.

In 1950, John Nash — the mathematician later featured in the book and film "A Beautiful Mind" — wrote a two-page paper that transformed the theory of economics. His crucial, yet utterly simple, idea was that any competitive game has a notion of equilibrium: a collection of strategies, one for each player, such that no player can win more by unilaterally switching to a different strategy.

Nash's equilibrium concept, which earned him a Nobel Prize in economics in 1994, offers a unified framework for understanding strategic behavior not only in economics but also in psychology, evolutionary biology and a host of other fields. Its influence on economic theory "is comparable to that of the discovery of the DNA double helix in the biological sciences," wrote Roger Myerson of the University of Chicago, another economics Nobelist.

When players are at equilibrium, no one has a reason to stray. But how do players get to equilibrium in the first place? In contrast with, say, a ball rolling downhill and coming to rest in a valley, there is no obvious force guiding game players toward a Nash equilibrium.

"Economists have proposed mechanisms for how you can converge [quickly] to equilibrium," said Aviad Rubinstein, who is finishing a doctorate in theoretical computer science at the University of California, Berkeley. But for each such mechanism, he said, "there are simple games you can construct where it doesn't work."

It's always nice to see another win in the game theory column. The iterated prisoner's dilemma triumphs again! Seriously, this has big ramifications for economics. I think in the same way that W. Brian Arthur re-defined Adam Smith's theory of the 'Ideal Agent'.
 
Read the article at quantamagazine.org:


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @09:23PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 05 2017, @09:23PM (#577642)

    So what you saying shitty Socialism for entire population of America is impossible because e^300,000,000. I could have told you that.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Flamebait=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Flamebait' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1