What does game science have to do with philosophy?

Game theory does not belong to the category of philosophy, it is a branch and special case of logic.

Not philosophical. It belongs to logic, probability theory.

And philosophy gives more thinking about grand problems, and the concept feels like it hasn't been updated much, and people are still moving people out hundreds of years ago at every turn.

Different angles, of course you can be the first person to classify.

Because game theory has become one of the standard analytical tools in economics. It has a wide range of applications in finance, biology, economics, international relations, computer science, political science, military strategy, and many other disciplines.

Game theory, also known as strategy theory, is not only a new branch of modern mathematics, but also an important discipline of operations research.

Game theory is a mathematical theory and method that studies the interaction between formulaic incentive structures, and is a mathematical theory and method for studying phenomena with the nature of struggle or competition. Game theory considers the behavior and behavior of individuals in the game, and studies their optimization strategies. Biologists use game theory to understand and ** certain outcomes of evolutionary theory.

Game theory, also known as strategy theory, is a branch of economics that studies the interaction between formulaic incentive structures (games or games). It is a mathematical theory and method for the study of phenomena of a fighting or competitive nature.

It is also an important discipline in operations research.

Game theory considers the ** behavior and actual behavior of individuals in the game, and studies their optimization strategies. Apparently different interactions may exhibit similar incentive structures, so they are special cases of the same game.

Case: Two suspects, A and B, were arrested, but there was not enough evidence to charge them with guilt. So ** imprisoned the suspects separately, met with the two separately, and offered both parties the same options as follows:

1. If a person pleads guilty and testifies against the other party (the relevant term is "betrayal" against the other party) and the other person remains silent, the person will be released immediately and the silent person will be sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment.

2. If both of them remain silent (the term is "cooperating" with each other), they will also be sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

3. If both of them report each other ("betray" each other), they will also be sentenced to 5 years in prison. Celery destroys the wilderness.

Which strategy should prisoners choose to minimize their personal sentences? The two prisoners were incommunicado and did not know each other's choices; And even if they can talk, they may not be able to trust each other not to talk back.

As far as an individual's rational choice is concerned, the sentence for reporting betrayal is always lower than silence. Imagine how two rational prisoners in a dilemma would make a choice

1. If the other party is silent and I betray will let me be released, so I will choose to betray.

2. If the other party betrays and accuses me, I also have to accuse the other party to get a lower sentence, so I will also choose to betray.

Both of them face the same situation, so their rational thinking will come to the same conclusion - choose betrayal. Betrayal is the dominant of the two strategies.

Therefore, the only possible Nash equilibrium in this game is for both participants to betray each other, resulting in both serving 5 years in prison.

Case Study: The Prisoner Dilemma Match.

Let's say you're playing a prisoner's dilemma with a "suspect" who is locked up in another room. Moreover, imagine that this game is not played once, but many times. The final score you get for your game is the total number of years you have been imprisoned.

You want to make that score as low as possible. What strategy should you use? Should you start by confessing or keeping silent?

How will the actions of another participant affect your confessional decisions later on?

The prisoner dilemma is a complex game. To encourage cooperation, participants should punish each other for uncooperative behavior. But the previously described strategy of Jack and Jill's water cartel – that as long as the other defaults, one party defaults forever – is not forgiven.

In a game that has been repeated many times, it may be more desirable to allow participants to return to the outcome of the cooperation after a period of non-cooperation.

To illustrate which strategy is best, political scientist Robert? Robert Axelrod played a match. People enter the game through a computer program designed to repeatedly play the prisoner's dilemma.

Each program in which the game is played corresponds to all the others. The one who gets the procedure with the fewest total years in prison is the "winner".

The winner results in a simple strategy known as a pay-for-one. According to the report and the report, the participants should start with the cooperation, and then the other participant should do what he or she did the last time. Therefore, the participants must cooperate until the other party breaches the contract; He defaulted until the other party re-joined the game.

In other words, the strategy starts with friendship, punishes unfriendly participants, and, if the other person changes, gives forgiveness. To Axelrod's surprise, this simple strategy is better than all the more complex strategies that people lose.

Game theory (game theory), also translated as strategy theory or game theory, is a branch of economics, von Neumann and Oscar Morgenstern co-authored "Game Theory and Economic Behavior" in 1944, marking the initial formation of modern system game theory, so he is called the "father of game theory".

Game theory is considered one of the greatest achievements of economics in the 20th century. It is a mathematical theory and method for the study of phenomena of a fighting or competitive nature. It is also an important discipline in operations research.

The source of modern game theory is John von Neumann's idea and proof of the equilibrium point of mixed strategies in two-player zero-sum games.

The study of game theory began with Ernst Zermelo (1913), Emil Borrell (1921) and von Neumann (1928), and was later systematized and formalized by von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstein (1944, 1947) (cf. Myerson, 1991). Subsequently, John Forbes Nash (1950, 1951) proved the existence of equilibrium points using the fixed point theorem, laying a solid foundation for the generalization of game theory.

The basic definition of game theory consists of the following five aspects: the insider, i.e., the participant with decision-making power; Strategy, i.e. the program that directs the entire action; Gains and losses, that is, the result at the end of the laughing game; Order, i.e., the order in which the parties to the game make decisions; Equilibrium, i.e., stable game results. Referring to the temporal sequence of behavior, game theory can be divided into static game and dynamic game, and can be divided into complete information game and incomplete information game from the manager's understanding of other participants.

The classification of games is not different according to different benchmarks. It is generally believed that games can be mainly divided into cooperative games and non-cooperative games. The difference between them lies in whether there is a binding agreement between the parties that interact with each other, if there is, it is a cooperative game, and if not, it is a non-cooperative game.

By combining the above two classifications, four kinds of games are further classified, namely, complete information static game, complete information dynamic game, incomplete information static game and incomplete information dynamic game. At the same time, according to the above four games, four equilibrium concepts can be derived, namely, Nash equilibrium, sub-game refined Nash equilibrium, Bayesian Nash equilibrium, and refined Bayesian Nash equilibrium.