/sci/ - Science & Math

Why does game theory always have to be about logistics, investments and literal games? It doesn't and it's a psyop. Someone is out there calculating exactly how much pussy a man needs to get so that he's motivated to strive for particular goals and I want to know the numbers. In other words: where are they hiding the true social science that informs political decision making?

>>16059365
I read it a while back, it's way too introductory to be useful
You'll learn more by reading this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/decision-theory
>>16059408
>by Michael Maschler, Eilon Solan, and Shmuel Zamir
oy vey!
jk, this looks like a good text, thanks anon

>>16029971
Right now there's basically three that I see showing up all over the place (depending on the architecture).

The first is the exponential explosion of the action space if you are doing value based infrastructures (e.g., DQN). Even with DeepMind money and DeepMind server infrastructure they struggle to have consistent convergence for DQN based infrastructures when the action space allows for more than 30-40 parallel action choices.

If you instead go into the world of actor-critic based infrastructures, your big challenge will be stability and designing reward functions to avoid problems of local minima. An easy example that shows up in RL for robotics is the following: when you want your continuous action space robot to produce complex behaviors, it's very easy to accidentally create a reward structure that favors failing early over exploring for the complex solution.

This problem is one that's relevant to RL for LLM's as well. Let's say you want an RL agent to mimic some sort of complex human speech pattern and you want it to learn this via RL. It will often be very difficult to achieve this because "ending early" via quick but high penalty failures could be "higher reward" than longer but more truthful to human behaviors.

The third big problem is the one of multiple objectives when there isn't a clear way to relate them to a shared cost. If you've got many different tasks to balance simultaneously and you want to get the best of all worlds at once, your decision space grows very quickly and it's very often unclear what the "best" combinations of actions could be when there are many parallel ways of achieving the same reward for a particular state-action-expected reward tuple. This problem is one that will require fundamental research in optimization, game theory, and statistical decision theory before we will see real progress in tackling things from an RL perspective.

>>16002725
i think advanced alien civilizations will have a different decision making process to Hvladimir
our idea of the dark forest comes from game theory, something Hvladimir does not have access to

>>15926099
>what logic does a video game dev magically dictates how players ought to play his game?
It's funny that you don't see the irony of this statement. The logic of the game reflects the logic of the dev regardless of his intention. Any way the game is played is an extension of that logic. The starting conditions of the universe made possible the physical laws, the development of planet Earth, life, evolution, consciousness, anime, AI waifus and so on.

Everything that has happened, is happening and will happen is a consequence of the foundational logic of the universe including religion, morality and darwinism. As a part of the universe and that foundational logic there is no way we can think or act independent from it. That's why christians are hell bent on the existence of God, souls and morality outside the universe or else morality is such as this Anon describes:
>>15925247
>Morality comes from a mixture of instincts and social norms. These instincts were created, because evolution optimized social behaviors in alignment with the mathematical realities of game theory.

Religion and morality are supposed to counteract darwinism from the religious point of view and are part of game theory from the darwinist point of view. Now what's funny is that religion, morality and darwinism are all part of the universe so it appears that it's in the nature of the universe to question its own decision-making.

>>15550543
It's actually not hard, I find the hardest parts are the piping and connections.

Start with the basics of statistical learning and decision optimization (all of it is fairly straightforward, but for whatever reason everyone tries to skip or rush over it). I recommend Introduction to Statistical Learning with R, it's a free and comprehensive text that goes over most of the popular algorithms. The actual AI part of it is basically determining what to do (i.e., decision optimization) based off perception and what the stats/model is saying.

Learn state machines for the AI portion and Q-learning for a basic learning algorithm (again something fairly basic, but people skip over it).

The entire field is fairly muddy, but AI and Machine Learning encompass a large portion of applied math. Studying game theory, using and automating it is effectively AI for example. Lots of tasks like this where you use a math field then automate become part of the AI field.

But learn data analysis. That's always step one. Then learn optimization, network optimization is a good starting point. The rest is just piping data around and autistic programming tasks to make sure things don't break.

>>15446086
>Guilt refers to a decision making process like game theory.
You don't seem to understand what the buzzwords mean.

>Suppose there's a predator that behaves in such a way that it kills prey as quickly and painlessly as possible. Is that not a physiological precursor to morality?
Absolutely not. Murder doesn't become moral by virtue of the fact that it's committed more efficiently. You seem to have a serious deficit when it comes to morality.

>A weak man is not going to fight fairly.
It's not fair to initiate a fight in the first place.

>>15446038
>That's right, there are none.
No reason to be so sure. Guilt refers to a decision making process like game theory. Interaction between flowers and bees is a molecular mechanism. Bees probably don't feel attraction to flowers like men feel attracted to women because bees lack the physiological mechanisms to do so. Suppose there's a predator that behaves in such a way that it kills prey as quickly and painlessly as possible. Is that not a physiological precursor to morality? Morality is not learned independently from biology. A weak man is not going to fight fairly.

>>15443534
That's an interesting way of thinking, although honestly I do not fully understand the implications. If the universe is like a pool game, then there seems to be no room for probability. However, if game theory is not just a model, but part of reality itself, how then do we know that our actions are the result of the universe / human physiology ''calculating'' cost/benefits of different scenario's and how is the decision for a particular scenario made?

>>15367248
Math. I'm about to complete a masters, primarily focusing on combinatorics. However, I applied to the PhD program indicating an interest in game theory, and my prospective advisor mainly works on game theory and decision theory.

>>15153943
In a behaviorism way? I guess they would.
What if the hypnotist gave them free choice over the stimulus with a neutral preference either way? Would they feel normally or experience a change in feeling?
>>15153986
Yes it is. You can involve game theory or bring in another decision making theory as a counter argument I suppose
>>15154152
I don't know, that's why I asked

>>15023611
Abstract

Two views of game theory are discussed: (1) game theory as a description of the behavior of rational individuals who recognize each other's reationality and reasoning abilities, and (2) game theory as an internally consistent recommendation to individuals on how to act in interactive situations. It is shown that the same mathematical tool, namely modal logic, can be used to explicitly model both views.

Type
Research Article
Information
Risk, Decision and Policy , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , December 2002 , pp. 309 - 324
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1357530902000704

You are I fucking love science tier, kys

>>14579509
>I feel like this lack of understanding of real world dynamics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJS7Igvk6ZM

>>14579519
>Let me guess, if you put the effort into writing your real counterargument instead of shitposting (defecting), you fear that I would defect by shitposting against you instead?
He doesn't have a counterargument so he just pretends he lost because he "wasn't trying", not because he was bad.

>>14579306
>Every decision is perfectly rational in the moment that it is made.
Sunk Cost Fallacy

>>14579397
>Nobody can switch teams and the game never ends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcBTOU7RvbU&t=105

>Ask OP asks, is there every a rational reason to cooperate?

Yes, because of:
>>14579291
>Furthermore, in the real world there are second and third order effects

You can communicate with the teams to affect them. If, alternatively, the teams are so large that you can't communicate with them as wholes, then you can make special signals for "enlightened" members of each team (shibboleths, ichthys, etc.) to subtly display and distinguish themselves from the rabble.

>>14582427
>intentionally using a logical fallacy to win an argument
Yes, this is an example, but you missed the concept of approximation and fat tails. Not every pit bull may maul you, but assuming they will and avoiding them is still rational.

Conversely, if there ever is a pit bull that might not maul you, it can voluntarily choose to countersignal to escape anti-pit-bull prejudice, for example Larry Elder. (Ironically in turn receiving prejudice FROM OTHER PIT BULLS).

>>14581855
>you can see Should this change your strategy at all?
You think you can see it but how do you know it's not a trick by the chooser?

>>14582306
>what are some real life examples of true prisoner dilemmas that show that Game Theory actually does have real life applications?
They are all secret because no one wants to admit to using them. This is, ironically, itself an example of the prisoner's dilemma.

Game theory.
Decision theory.
Measure theory for a foundation of probability.

>>12691776
Retard. You can’t retain anything you don’t care about. This is why we have schools, so that they can gamify the learning process by making us care about things like grades etc. It’s not a bad system, it clearly works. But at some point you’re expected to have some fucking agency and be able to LARP your way into learning things on your own. Clearly you’ve implicitly come to the conclusion that whatever you’re trying to learn isn’t of utility of you. If it was, you’d remember it. Part of it is the fact that you’re a NEET that’s spent the last 4 years doing things of little significance every single day that you end up ejected from memory the next day. Now the problem is that you’ve made the conscious decision to actually do something useful with your life and learn something but your mind still remains in the habit of discarding most of the information you acquire during the day. It doesn’t distinguish between Quantum Field Theory and the retarded YouTube videos you consume. So what’s the solution? Keep doing whatever it is you’re trying to learn. Eventually your subconscious will catch up and realise that this thing is of importance to you and retain it. Why in the fuck you expected your brain to instantly retain information after 4 years of giving it no reason to do so, I don’t know. You’ve also chosen to try and learn Physics, so good luck trying to trigger a mechanism that’s evolved to ensure your physical survival by doing Lagrangian Mechanics, it won’t be easy. Maybe learn to code, you’ll be introduced to a lot of mathematics and possibly some physics. The idea of acquiring an employable skill along the way might do the trick. But at the end of the day the point is that you need skin in the game to have any hope of learning something of of even remote difficulty. You’re only option is to stick with it and figure out what the best LARP for getting you to learn is given how you’re wired. Good luck anon.

>>12471066
Game theory is the study of mathematical models of strategic interaction among rational decision-makers.

>>12358094
honestly, if you understand the nash equilibrium and the prisoners dilemma, you got central tenets down- the 'supply-and-demand' of game theory if you will. From there explore the prisoners dilemma in repeated games.

Another game, that could expose one to the things not quite found in there is the monte hall problem https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WvlPgIjx_M to explore turn based, probabilistic games. where decision sets arn't the same.

If you want to impress your friend, say you applied the prisonners dilemma using quantum rules https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0301042.pdf and have potentially found a way to break the nash equilibrium

>>12029911
And holy shit if you really equate learning game theory to something that keeps people educated you are a massive fucking retard. Imagine implementing most neoliberal, market driven individualistic mind set there is how, how we are all just rational machines trying to max out our gains and minimize losses and calling that something that allows people make informed independent decision. Max retard logic

>>11938876
After predicate and propositional logic:
formal epistemology
type theory
proof theory
good software foundations
formal methods
model theory
modal logic
temporal logic
doxastic logic
informal fallacies
fallacies and biases
boolean algebra
boolean logic
categorical logic
theories of rationality
symbolic approaches to artficial intelligence
decision theory
common knowledge
game theory
non-classical logics
linear logic
quantum logic
many-valued logic
relevance logic
non-monotonic logic
intuitionistic logic
non-reflexive logic
fuzzy logic
bayesian probability
algorithmic theory
solomonoff induction
probabilistic logic
kolmogorov complexity
bayesian networks
subjective logic
abductive reasoning
Löwenheim–Skolem theorem
Gödel's completeness theorem
Gödel's incompleteness theorem
Gödel's second incompleteness theorem
Von Neumann Universe
Actively Open Minded Thinking
Stanovich Theory of the Reflective Mind
Amos Tversky Theory of the two systems
etc etc etc :-)

>>11599282
Get a good understanding of algebra and analysis is the best advice. Don’t take the results to serious and always try to use some common sense in what you do and understand how a small change can flip everything.
>next step
Understanding history is just data and not the future. Game theory and decision theory are very interesting. Same goes for non linear optimization and if you want to really advance chaos theory.
I personally think normality and predictability are the prejudice of the mediocre mind.

>>11556288

I got a bachelor of science in economics. I think intermediate micro and macro is just applied calculus. So, just basic calculus for those subjects.

I studied a lot of game theory and decision theory, which in its most basic and mathematical form a lot into formal logic, set theory, and bayesian statistics. I even took some graduate level courses in a more advanced topic called "mechanism design" that frankly had math way over my head. Like Measure Theory and advanced statistical calculus.

>>11556295

>If economics were useful and correct, economists would be rich.

No this is just dumb. Its like saying "If medicine was useful , why doctors would get sick?". They study something, it doesnt make them the masters of it.

Economists dont make for good business people or investors. Economists dont know what is good business, or what is valuable. They study structures of people and how incentives and information is distributed between them.

>>11386049
>i'd rather not assume the entire game is rigged so that i can't measure whatever i want. i do not feel anything that dictates my actions, so i assume i can change my dials however i want in the lab, and any theory that tells me "your decision was dictated by some unknown rule of nature" seems to violate occam's razor for me.

i don't feeeel like i'm made out of atoms so i assume i'm not made out of atoms and can instead do what i want.

>>11385963
the idea is that superdeterminism is contradicted by what we try to do in the lab. in the lab we say "oh now let's change our measurement device to check something else" and if the theory still holds then we are reassured that the theory isn't bullshit.

if we believe in superdeterminism, then maybe there was some sort of "cosmic conspiracy" that made us change our measurement at just the right time so that our bad theory would turn out right even though it is a complete crap description of actually how things work. since in superdeterminism the real theory could and would and would have to dictate how i choose to make my measurements. it would dictate whether i choose to measure my polarization along the vertical or horizontal axis. so me drawing conclusions from me changing horizontal vs. vertical would be explained by some crazy theory that is dictating MY behavior rather than the behavior of the thing i am measuring.

this is why superdeterminism is a nonscientific path. it leads you to the cosmic conspiracy.

even 't Hooft, who i respect, and who is a superdeterminism proponent, acknowledges that this is an issue. he uses the words "cosmic conspiracy" explicitly, multiple times, in his writings on these things.

i'd rather not assume the entire game is rigged so that i can't measure whatever i want. i do not feel anything that dictates my actions, so i assume i can change my dials however i want in the lab, and any theory that tells me "your decision was dictated by some unknown rule of nature" seems to violate occam's razor for me.

>>11218414
Continuation from previous post
>set theory
>not math
lol what set theory is mathematical logic, are you really going to say it isn't math. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory
>probability
>you won't understand it
>topology
>see above
Maybe a brainlet undergrad CS students, but if you go for TCS in grad school or a PHD in TCS you have to learn probability and topology
>game theory
>not math
Oh come on studying things mathematically is math. You're not going to tell me physicists do no math now are you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory
>decision theory
>see above
>utility theory
>see above
>social choice theory
>see above
lol I'll give you these, these aren't math
>discretization
>gay
Not an argument
>operations research
>not math
Kinda iffy on this one, it seems to be a subset of applied math but its kinda vague so I'll give you this one.