Talk:Nash equilibrium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nash equilibrium article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Nash equilibrium was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. Review: July 14, 2007. |
Nash equilibrium available online
The seminal journal paper in which Nash introduces what is now called the Nash equilibrium is "Non-Cooperative Games", John Nash, The Annals of Mathematics 54(2):286-295, 1951. It is available online to for a fee at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-486X%28195109%292%3A54%3A2%3C286%3ANG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G (many universities subscribe to JSTOR, so this link should work for at least some people beside me)
I'm not posting that directly to the page since I'm not sure whether it's OK to post links to for-pay resources. If it is OK, then please copy this to the article page.
--JP, Nov 10 2005
Well, I just did that yesterday, before reading this note. I will remove what I did right away. The article is available for a fee, but many universities and colleges provide free access to this and other for fee-services for their students.
--Zsolt, June 7, 2006
On the other hand, referencing the article itself, without a link to the for-fee online article is probably ok. So I just took out the link to that on-line version. This way people can still find it if they want to.
--Zsolt, June 7, 2006
Removed setence
I reverted an edit by anon, which added this setence to one section:
"choosing the best strategy given the strategies that others have chosen"
The sentence was out of context and imcomplete. If the anon would like to add it in context I'm sure it would be helpful. --Kzollman 17:59, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Coordination game
As it turns out the entry Coordination game redirects here. Given the wide discussion of coordination games, I think it diserves its own entry. Would folks mind if I seeded the entry with the material here, and removed the redirect? thanks! -Kzollman 23:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Presently, nothing links to Coordination game other than daughters of Nash Equilibrium, and both of these actually give its pay-off matrix (Mixed strategy, Pure strategy). Therefore, there can't be a problem expanding that article from a redirect.
- Cheers, Wragge 00:56, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
- Done! best --Kzollman 00:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Fixed points
In my game theory class and text books we proved the existence of the Nash equilibrium using Kakutani fixed point theorem, a generalization of Brouwer fixed point theorem. Does anyone smarter than me know if Brower's is strong enough to prove the existence (as stated in the article)? --Kzollman 00:48, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Computing Nash equilibria
I am concerned about the validity of this sentence from the article (and about the method it's describing in general): "In order for a player to be willing to randomize, their expected payoff for each (pure) strategy should be the same." This seems to be false for games where the nash equilibrium doesn't use all of the options (for example a game of rock-paper-scissors-water where playing water always loses) in which case the system of equations generated by the procedure doesn't have any solutions. --Umnikos (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2026 (UTC)