Talk:Game theory/Archive 1

message: Game Theory can be broken down into several categories.
- Linear Programming
- Prisoner's Dilemma
- Berlekamp Theory (John Conway "Winning Ways for your Mathematical Plays") Surreal numbers
- Games of perfect information (go, chess)
- Games with perfect information, but a random element (backgammon, monopoly)
- Games of imperfect information
- Multiple player games (where coalition building is an important part of strategy) (Risk, Poker, voting schemes)
As a minor topic, there are several games from "The Price Is Right" that are mathematically interesting.  I remember seeing articles on correct bidding strategy in the "Contestant's row game", and the "Big Wheel game".
I remember seeing a good article on correct bidding strategy on "Final Jeopardy"
Just a query from a non-tech head with only very basic knowledge but isn't "The Weakest Link" also of game theoretic interest, the whole deal with whether you choose to vote off the weakest player and increase overall winnings or the strongest player to increase your chance of beating them - this reminds me a little of the centipede gameAndrew F. 22:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Heuristic is a much better word for 'theory that helps you find a winning strategy'. Which is one concept from the above. I'd expect a theory of a game to be more like game theory, perhaps based on some modelling assumptions.
Charles Matthews 15:31, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Heuristics

message: Nash provided a way to solve non-zero sum games, he is probably as important or more important then Morgenstern and von Neumann (who formalized, 'invented', game theory.
Also I think there should be examples of how to solve a game bi-matrix here, (i.e. find the Nash equilbria).  If you take a game theory course a large part is finding these Nash solutions to games.  I think I did a solved one, but didnt show the solution steps, in the Nash equilibrium section if you want to copy it over.
I think it is better to view this as a multidisciplinary field like political-economy or cognitive science then as a branch of only mathematics.  The problem with only having it as a branch of mathematics is:
1) Those who do game theory are more often then not economists or doctors of economics.  Game theory is often taught by economics and not mathematics departments, as game theory is often regarded as the third pillar (behind macro and micro economics) of economics.
2) The prizes most awarded in the field of gametheory is the Nobel prize of economics, not the fields medal.
3) The foundational book of game theory, by Morgenstern and von Neumann, is called "Theory of Games and *economic* behavior.
Because of this, and because of all the overlap, I think that game theory should be regarded as a field of mathematics, economics, and also increasingly psychology (recently Nobel prizes in economics have been going to psychologists for their work on the assumptions of rationality).  As a result Game Theory is best described as a multidisciplinary field. --ShaunMacPherson 08:32, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with the point about it being multidisciplinary, but I think the current introduction is a bit clunky.  I'll try a rewrite. Isomorphic 08:43, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  von Neumann, Morgenstern and Nash

message: Is monopoly a Zero-Sum Game?
It all depends on what the definition of winner really is..
I mean at the end of the game..there will be one person who will be the wealthiest... but that doesn't mean all others won't gain anything.. There could also be others who have quite an amount of wealth. The net effect is no body loses when person x become the wealthiest.
:It's debatable.  In fact, I just commented on this exact problem at Talk:non-zero-sum.  The way it's currently argued in the article makes it pretty clear under what conditions Monopoly is zero-sum, so I think it's ok. Isomorphic 20:19, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The above sounds like nonsense to me.  There is no first mover in the Prisoner's Dilemma;  it's a simultaneous-move game by definition.  Can't be sure, however, as the comments are too vague.  Isomorphic 04:05, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monopoly 

message: I would mention that WSOP winner Chris Ferguson has frequently attributed his success at the poker table to his studies of game theory while spending 18 years gettting his PhD in Computer Science at UCLA.  Poker is one of the few real world examples of applied game theory in practice.
:Von Neuman loved poker, it was the major motivator in starting his thinking on the topic. Pete.Hurd 20:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, David Sklansky actively uses game theory in his discussions of poker strategy.  Nothing so deep as von Neumann's analysis, but nonetheless insightful.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poker

message: Hello all -  I have had some discussion about starting a  wikiproject game theory.  There are a lot of missing articles and some standardization issues that it would be nice to deal with in an organized fashion.  If you would be interested in participating, drop me a note.  With enough interest, we will go a head and start one.  --best, kevin  ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:19, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm interested.  Our game theory coverage was terrible when I arrived here, and I always intended to do some work on it.  It's somewhat better now than it was, but still not comprehensive, clear, or well-polished.  Take a look at best response or cooperative game, for example, and there doesn't appear to be an article at all on the concepts of a dominant strategy or dominated strategy. Isomorphic 05:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note... I just plugged one of the above gaps with the article dominance (game theory).  I'd appreciate some extra pairs of eyes, to check for mistakes or improve the explaniation.) Isomorphic 07:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject anyone? 

message: I just find it strange that this article doesn't mention combinatorial game theory at all even though that article does. I guess most people only care about economic game theory, but the only real text I have read on game theory was Winning Ways, and feel it deservese proper recognition here even if it is a less popular feild.
:You're invited to write! The article contains what the people who write it know. mousomer 10:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mentioned it in the history section. Charles Matthews 10:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the bit from the history section, because I don't really know when the split occured and I was altering the history section to be more cronological.  I have already added a dab link at the top of the page.  If someone knows when this split occured, please add it back to the history section.   --best, kevin  └ KZOLLMAN/ TALK┐ 23:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combinatorial Game Theory 

message: At the Featured article vote, someone suggested that we add a picture to the lead section.  I thought this was a good idea, but I have had a hard time finding one.  My ideas were: a picture of stock traders, a picture of an auction, or a picture of animals fighting (or at least obviously threatening).  I have had little luck finding any such pictures. (I really don't like our picture on auction, its not really obviously an auction and its doesn't show bidding which is the centeral thing at auctions.) Any ideas either where to find these pictures or any other ideas?  BTW, I considered a picture of John Forbes Nash, but that picture is used under fair use which will not allow us to use it on this page.  Also, I think pictures of board games will only further add to the confusion between game theory and combinatorial game theory, although I'm open to be convinced otherwise. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll see if I can find a nice photograph of threat displays that has two individuals counter-signalling, the game theory connection might be a bit abstract.  Maybe a little picture per section. In any case, I'll look through what I have rights to and see if there's a good biological game theory example. Pete.Hurd 19:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: I removed the following part from the Representation of Games section: "a way to determine the outcome from the strategies selected by the players", this is redudant with "and a specification of payoffs for each combination of strategies" (which immeadiately followed it).  I don't actually have a strong feeling about which wording is included, but both are unnecissary.  In addition, I removed the  template because, that bit was the only part taken from planet math.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed bit 

message: I removed an added paragraph regarding the recent nobel prize from the intro section.  I don't think that this is important enough to warrent discussion in the intro paragraph.  It is not the first Nobel prize to be awarded in game theory and the article is about the topic of game theory not game theorists.  The most recent prize is mentioned in the history section, but perhaps it could be expanded?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobel prize 

message: I remember studying game theory and strategies in nuclear war at university. There was a paper by David Lewis which I will dig out and look at. Basically it was all to do with the strategies which the different sides in the cold war would employ in the case of an all out assault by an enemy.
:That's great, one of the things this article is short on is the use of Game Theory in nuclear strategy and political science more generally.  I look forward to your addition!  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game theory and nuclear strategy 

message: This distinction should be made somewhere in the article and relevant links (to cooperative game) providedradek 06:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely!  It was left out because no one knowledgable enough has added it in.  If you know something about cooperative games please add it in.  I would suggest discuss it under the Game theory in economics section.  Although, if you think it would fit better somewhere else, feel free. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 08:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed this omission a few days ago, but I don't know enough about cooperative game theory to write it. Isomorphic 15:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to come up with something. However, since the article is already quite long I'm worried that the addition will make it too long. We could retitle the present article "non-cooperative game theory" and have a "game theory" page which gives a more general overview (basically the intro of this one) and then provides links to nc-gt and c-gt seperately. If that's too much, maybe we could keep the title and then add a sentence at the beginning along the lines of "This article deals with nc-gt, for c-gt see ..." - this might be enough since nc-gt is more common and more widely applied. radek 06:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cooperative vs. non-cooperative GT 

message: (And all the actual game theorists groan at all the comments after being Wiki's featured article...)
I noticed in the discussion of philosophy and game theory there's no mention of John Rawls ("A Theory of Justice").  There's a mention on the page that starting at least with Hobbes, social-contract theorists have attempted to motivate morality in terms of self-interest.  To my (very limited) knowledge, Rawls was the first one to use the formal methods of game theory, welfare economics, et al. to try to arrive at a specific contract (his two principles of justice).  Either way, his work seems to be significant and maybe should be mentioned. Dstrozzi 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, some choices had to be made in choosing who to include.  Although Rawls used some economics and game theory, I don't think that game theoretic considerations were primary.  If you think he ought to be included feel free to add it in.  I have toyed with the idea of writting a game theory in philosophy article... but there are so many things to do. :)  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rawls? 

message: Are there any? Has game theory actually produced any significant improvement in society? For example, are there documented instances of economies benefitting from a non-obvious insight derived solely from game theory? If so, they might be worth a mention. Eiler7 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know using game theory to study macroeconomics is a relatively small field.  Game theory is more often used to study the behavior of individuals (human or other living things).  It has had predictive success in these areas (and some predictive failures as well), but I'm not sure its had anything like obvious direct improvement.  The closest case I can think of, is that a game theorist designed the US's FCC auction of radio bands, and the result was generally considered good.  But, I only know this through hearsay. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real world success stories 

message: Relating to the following passage:
:he focus of attention is usually not so much on what is the best way to play such a game, but simply on whether one or the other player has a winning strategy. (It can be proved, using the axiom of choice, that there are games—even with perfect information, and where the only outcomes are "win" or "lose"—for which neither player has a winning strategy.) The existence of such strategies, for cleverly designed games, has important consequences in descriptive set theory.
An anon editor recently changed "existence" to "nonexistence" in the last sentence. I reverted, because it's usually the existence of strategies that has the consequences (for example, if a class of Banach-Mazur games is determined, then certain sets of reals must have the property of Baire). But it's sort of an understandable mistake, given the fact that the sentence comes immediately after a parenthetical remark talking about nonexistence of strategies. Without the parenthetical remark, though, the reader might think that the existence of winning strategies is trivial.
Anyone want to take a crack at this? --Trovatore 19:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: determinacy/indeterminacy

message: Can someone point me to single player games theory introduction article or web resource? Thanks !! 195.137.203.137
: "Single-player game theory" is nothing more than optimization (mathematics). Samohyl Jan 16:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single player game 

message: It says: "Most games studied in game theory are perfect information games, although there are some interesting examples of imperfect information games, including the ultimatum game and centipede game."
But when looking at these examples (the ultimatum game and the centipede game) closer they both seem to be perfect information games. For example, in the ultimatum game, when making the decision, the second player knows the move of the first player, and thus this game is a perfect information game. The same holds for the centipede game.
The example picture of an imperfect information game is correct though.
:Thank you for point that out.  It was originally correct, but was apparently changed at some point.  I have changed it back.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An error in "imperfect information games"? 

message: Ok, so I was searching around for information on game theory. I found this, and it sounded very familiar. I don't know if everyone already knows about this, and I'm just behind the loop, or what, but I'll just leave this here and you guys can take action if you need to.
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/g/ga/game_theory.html
Similar doesn't even begin to describe it. Vancar 20:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From that link "The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL". It is a wikipedia mirror. Martin 20:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who copied whom? 

message: List of games in game theory is a current Featured List candidate. Both the article and current nomination would benefit from additional feedback by Math and Game-theory enthusiasts. If any of you have the time, please have a look at the list and leave your comments at the nomination page. Thank you! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of games in game theory]] on [[WP:FLC]] 

message: I removed this edit.  I looked at Green's paper and it said the opposite of what the edit said, namely, the findings suggest that game theorists are better than novices, but not as good as role playing.  Since this article is about game theory generally, and not role playing, I think its inappropriate for this article.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green 2002 

message: The previous contributor clearly didn't look at the commentaries on Green 2002 or at Green 2005 which extends the work. So that others don't make the same mistake, I've rewritten the paragraph with more detail. I hope this clarifies the relevance of the findings to game theory. 
Kesten Green
:Thank you for your interest in the game theory.  As I mentioned above, I read the article cited in the addition (Green 2002), which says that game theorists were better than novices (contra the addition which said that game theorists were not better than novices).  I have a few concerns with the most recent edit.  Since this is a general article on game theory, I think its inappropriate that this one article (or two articles) are displayed so prominently.  By comparison, almost as many words are written about Green 2005 as game theory in biology.  Obviously, this makes the green study appear more influential than it has been.  Second, there is no citation for the claim that people have tried to refute the conclusions but failed.  Who has?  Where are these results published?  Although you may personally be aware of them, I'm afraid that wikipedia requires that such claims be verifiable by others.    Finally, I cannot really judge the importance of this paper.  I have no doubt that its an interesting study, but given its recency and lack of citations I'm not sure that it should be included.  Can you provide any external evidence that this paper has had wide influence in the game theory community?  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no discussion has been forthcoming, I have removed the paragraph.  Please do not restore it without attempting to reach a consensus here. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green 2005 

message: OK, so I reverted a US "modeling" back to "modelling" because that seemed to be the rule in this article, but other words seem to be in US english...  I really don't care that much, but is there a precedent for one or the other in this article?  I suppose I'll go dredge through the history and see... Pete.Hurd 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The oldest version I have access to (as edited by Zundark at 17:02, 31 October 2001 ) has only one word that I can find to judge spelling convention by, and that's "analyse".  So, I think the WP rule is to standardise the article on UK spelling. Pete.Hurd 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The simplest rule I have been able to find in wikipedia about spelling variants in English: a) if the article is about a subject on, e.g., the U.K., use UK spelling; b) if not, try to use whatever has been used in the article so far; c) if there is any doubt, leave the spelling alone (between English variants) - don't "fix" acceptable forms. The only clear exception to the last point is where the same word is spelled differently in the same article. There are lots of reasons the "precedent" in the article may not be clear - there are lots of inconsistencies between UK, NZ, AUS, SAfr, Cdn and US variants, and very few people know them all. Cdn spelling has, for example, no hard and fast rule on 'ise/ize' endings, but is very clear on how things are coloured - with a 'u'.--Gregalton 21:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English says that articles should use the same spelling throughout. I make an implicit WP:IAR exception for cases where a particular section of an article is specific to one culture -- for example "U.S. check" in the cheque article, the appropriate change in the "American usage" section of The Honourable -- but for a case like game theory I think we should stick to one dialect per article. --Trovatore 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding was, absent any obvious link between the subject matter and spelling variety (as is the case here) to go with the earliest usage in the article.  That's what I've attempted to do with the most recent change. Pete.Hurd 01:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's my understanding too. --Trovatore 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: When I rewrote the article I probably used US English (since, when I can spell, I spell in US).     I think Pete's right about the policy, but to be honest I didn't cheque before writing.  I probably should have, but being from the US I have a hard time imagining that there are people in the world who don't live in the US. :)  If someone who knows non-US spellings want to make the article consistently anything, I certainly won't object. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I've had a day of seeing multiple spelling "fixes" that were not fixes, and ahem, over-reacted. I am aware of the policy above, but I think 90% of the spelling fixes like this are from people not aware there is a policy at all, or perhaps what spelling variants exist. Hence, "leave it alone unless certain" would be more clear advice. At any rate, I'll cheque my rant at the door next time.--Gregalton 05:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless you guys are joking, you should know that "cheque" is never used to replace the word "check" except for when it pertains to a note given to banks. Otherwise check in American English and British English are the same. 128.227.51.100 20:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick everyone! look serious! Ummm... errrr... cover sheets on the TPS reports?! really? Pete.Hurd 21:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling 

message: Hi Knowsetfree, re:  I think "interact" is better than "compete".  You are right that "interact" doesn't capture the strongly competitive nature of things like the Hawk-dove game, (or zero sum games) on the one hand, but there are plenty of games, like coordination games, where the players have very strongly convergent interests.  I think "compete" might also be taken to imply that players are trying to obtain higher payoff than their "opponents", rather than maximizing their returns, regardless of the other player's payoffs. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 18:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "interact"/"compete" 

message: This is as much a note to myself as anyone else.  Joe Halpern has a nice encyclopedia article on the use of game theory in computer science .  If someone wants to expand this section this might be a nice start.  --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computer science 

message: This article still needs at leads a distinction between cooperative games and noncooperatives ones. Am I missing an article on cooperative games? I know there's ones on the Core and Shapley value but nothing general.radek 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking for cooperative game? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!radek 21:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added a paragraph on this. I would like to join Radek in saying that cooperative game theory is pretty much ignored on this page, for instance standard coalitional game forms are missing, but I feel adding them would require some reorganisation.Koczy 14:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cooperative vs. NonCooperative games

message: Since I knew of the existence of game theory, I wandered if it could be the instrument by means of which people could make better choices in every situation of their life. As far as I know, game theory is (or is supposed to be) widely used in 
economics. May also be in military operations.  But what about everyday life? I must confess that the idea of writing this
came to me after experiencing Second Life. The present computing capability could possibly allow to collect all the possible data about a problem or a choice an individual is not able to deal with alone. I think to have sufficiently outlined my idea.
What do you think about it?paolo de magistris 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if this has relevance to this page, but you could use GT to everyday conflict situaitons. Is it worth it? I am not sure. Building a model is often costly and time consuming. Most of the time you rely on your intuition. But when I bought a flat I tried to use GT in the negotiation.Koczy 14:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too ambitious? 

message: The article as it stands now is misleading as it does not involve a distinction between cooperative and non-cooperative games.  The bulk (perhaps all) of the examples are based on non-cooperative games -- which is okay, as long as it is explained so. EnumaElish 01:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Some of the stuff should go to Non-cooperative games.Koczy 14:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change entry (heading) to non-cooperative game theory, or add section on cooperative games 

message: The following was removed from the Lead at the end:
:Applying game theory to procedures and organisation in real life is often called gaming the system. This has a negative connotation and usually implies disingenuous behaviour.
Reasons:  There is no citation for it; it is misleading.  It is misleading, because 'larcenous' would be a better term than "disingenuous" at least by William Safire's account of the term. It is also misleading, because there is no necessity that one who acts like an accomplished player (say, Mother Teresa efficiently trying make the world a better place or the Allies after careful analysis picking the Normandy landing to shorten the war) is "gaming the system."  
A better explication of 'gaming the system' would be exploiting weaknesses of the system in a way regarded as larcenous in effect.  That may suggest that the system needs fixing or the character of the gamer is nefarious.  But there is no necessity  that a good player is larcenous or nefarious. 
It is possible that someone can establish the genealogy of 
'gaming the system' as relating to game theory rather than say gambling (as in 'gaming the house'). Even so, is that worth mentioning it in this article, considering how misleading the connection might be? --Thomasmeeks 10:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Gaming the system" removed from lead

message: The article is missing definition and discussion of degenerate and nondegenerate games. -- Vinsci 19:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, I think the best thing to do would be to write a seperate article on that topic first, then import the take-home into this article. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degenerate and nondegenerate games 

message: Is there a typo in the PD game matrix? The asymmetric payoffs should be reversed.
Referring to the original text by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950, mentioned on
Prisoner%27s_Dilemma, (C,D)=(-10,0) and (D,C)=(0,-10). 
It seems strange that if Player 1 plays Cooperate (stays silent) and Player 2 plays Defect (betrays), then it is Player 2 who gets the full 10-years while Player 1 goes free!
139.124.177.127 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: you are simply absolutely right! --Fioravante Patrone en 19:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typos in PD Game? 

message: ...the following links:elementsmotivesRandomblue (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambig/delete... 

message: There is not much about algorithmic game theory on wikipedia (aka information on how to actually compute equilibria). 
Why is this relevant? Assuming that two players behave rational during a game, requires that they are actually able to calculate their best moves in reasonable time. Complexity-theory tells us, that this seems impossible for games with many strategies:
e.g., computing Nash equilibria is -propably- not solvable in polynomial-time, since provably there exists an FPTAS only if 
"P"="NP". There's a nice paper of  Papadimitriou on this subject. 
It would be nice to have a page giving an overview over current solution-techniques, their drawbacks/advantages and computational complexity.
Willing to cooperate on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardybosse (talk • contribs) 12:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computational Complexity 

message: Would anyone object to putting these in the usual order, See also before Footnotes?  There's only one See also link, so no one is going to get lost, but for reasons that are currently being argued on WT:Layout, we're interested in knowing if anyone would object to a bot that alerts humans whenever end sections are in the standard order.  (And of course, anyone is welcome to chime in on the discussion.) - Dan Dank55 (talk) 02:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also before Footnotes 

message: I removed a section about game theory in hollywood plots.  As this didn't seem to relate to game theory, but just conflict of interest I don't think it's appropriate here. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hollywood