
Complexity Theory, Game Theory, and Economics - lainon
https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00734
======
lpage
For those interested in the intersection of computer science and economics, I
highly recommend the freely available Multiagent Systems: Algorithmic, Game-
Theoretic, and Logical Foundations by Yoav Shoham and Kevin Leyton-Brown [1].

[1]
[http://www.masfoundations.org/mas.pdf](http://www.masfoundations.org/mas.pdf)

~~~
vowelless
Their game theory courses are pretty useful too.

------
qubex
Very nice resource. (Applied mathematician that ended up in macroeconomics by
way of differential and algorithmic game theory).

~~~
decentralised
Out of curiosity, have you had the opportunity to look into cryptoeconomics?

[https://github.com/jpantunes/awesome-
cryptoeconomics](https://github.com/jpantunes/awesome-cryptoeconomics)

------
bluetwo
Using Rock-Paper-Scissors and an AI engine I stumbled across a bit of a flaw
in the textbook answer around this game.

The solution is not necessarily that both players will play all three options
randomly. It is only necessary for ONE player to play randomly in order to
reach an equilibrium. The other player at that point is free to pick any
strategy they choose, including playing a single option 100% of the time.

~~~
qubex
I’m pretty sure that’s incorrect. I haven’t had time to look through the text
yet but it sounds like you’re confusing the one-shot equilibrium (1/3
probability of playing any one of the three available strategies), each
deploying _simultaneously_ , and the iterated game scenario (in which one
player could be random, and you argue the other could continually play the
same strategy repeatedly, but then the other player would latch on and play
the matching countermove, pushing them both back towards randomness).

EDIT: It’s not nice to vote people down just because they politely point out
you’re demonstrably wrong.

~~~
bluetwo
I haven't down voted anyone.

Setup your own experiment and let me know what you find.

~~~
Yeikoff
Lets do then. Player 1 randomizes (1/3, 1/3, 1/3). Player 2 randomizes (1, 0,
0). Does player 1 want to deviate? Yes! Randomizing is not the best strategy
if player 2 is going to be playing the same pure strategy all the time, player
1 would be better off if she were to play the best response to whatever (1, 0,
0) is. -> Not an equilibrium.

------
elbear
The article says that no background in game theory is assumed. What kind of
background is required though?

~~~
ianai
The abstract makes it sound not highly technical. You may be fine with just
linear algebra and calculus 1.

Edit- quote from the introduction: “The technical material includes logic,
probability theory, game theory, and optimization.[...]the goal has been to
gather the most important elements from each discipline and weave them
together into a balanced and accurate introduction to this broad field. The
intended reader is a graduate student or an advanced undergraduate,
prototypically, but not necessarily, in computer science”

~~~
elbear
Thank you. One more reason to learn linear algebra and calculus then.

------
jvican
Any idea how I can get an ePub or MoBi version of this?

~~~
gowld
If HTML is good enough:

[https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/](https://www.arxiv-vanity.com/)

Arxiv Vanity renders academic papers from Arxiv as responsive web pages so you
don’t have to squint at a PDF.

~~~
Yen
Thanks for the link, this will prove useful given the amount of Arxiv links on
HN.

Doesn't appear to work with this paper, though.

