References for Nash's game theory

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the study of John Nash's game theory, particularly focusing on the mathematical foundations and appropriate references for further learning. Participants explore the necessary mathematical background for understanding Nash's contributions and the historical context of game theory.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses interest in studying Nash's game theory and questions their mathematical preparedness as a fourth-year particle physics student.
  • Another participant suggests starting with a Wikipedia article on Nash Equilibrium.
  • A participant seeks more specific references that explain the mathematical foundations of game theory and questions the level of math required.
  • A historical context is provided, noting that the concept of mixed strategy Nash Equilibrium was introduced by von Neumann and Morgenstern, and Nash later generalized this concept in his work.
  • One participant points out that Nash's contributions came after the foundational work by von Neumann and suggests that understanding the latter's work could be beneficial.
  • Another participant acknowledges the pioneering nature of von Neumann's work while questioning the existence of a distinct "Nash's game theory." They clarify that Nash's theorem generalizes von Neumann's theorem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the specific references for studying Nash's game theory or the level of mathematical understanding required. There are differing views on the relationship between Nash's work and that of von Neumann.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding their mathematical preparedness and the specific requirements for understanding game theory. There is also a lack of clarity on the distinction between Nash's contributions and earlier works in the field.

Einj
Messages
464
Reaction score
59
Hi all. I recently watched a documentary about John Nash's game theory and I'd like to study more about that. My present mathematical knowledge is that of a particle physics student at his fourth year. Is my preparation enough? If so, can someone advise some references where I could study?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Actually I was thinking about something more specific that could explain the mathematical foundations of the theory. Still I'm not sure if I have the right requirements in order to understand it. What level of math does it require?
 
Here's a quote from the historical section of the above link:
The modern game-theoretic concept of Nash Equilibrium is instead defined in terms of mixed strategies, where players choose a probability distribution over possible actions. The concept of the mixed strategy Nash Equilibrium was introduced by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in their 1944 book The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. However, their analysis was restricted to the special case of zero-sum games. They showed that a mixed-strategy Nash Equilibrium will exist for any zero-sum game with a finite set of actions. The contribution of John Forbes Nash in his 1951 article Non-Cooperative Games was to define a mixed strategy Nash Equilibrium for any game with a finite set of actions and prove that at least one (mixed strategy) Nash Equilibrium must exist in such a game.

I think John von Neumann is a pioneer in the field of game theory, and the quoted book may be a reputable source on the matter.

EDIT:
Here's a link from Google Books to look inside the book:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Theory_of_Games_and_Economic_Behavior_Co.html?id=_aIGYI-jGEcC
 
Thank you. I'll definitely look at it, but isn't Nash's theory been developed after this book?
 
Einj said:
Thank you. I'll definitely look at it, but isn't Nash's theory been developed after this book?

I don't know if there is such a thing as "Nash's game theory". I know he proved a theorem generalizing the one proven by von Neumann. That is why I linked you to this pioneering work. If you feel comfortable with the contents of this work, you are welcome to explore further.
 
I'll see. However, thank you very much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K