You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

paper-machine comments on What topics would you like to see more of on LessWrong? - Less Wrong Discussion

25 Post author: Emile 13 December 2010 04:20PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (137)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 August 2011 10:16:37PM 1 point [-]

I should note that Slee's book isn't very technical, so maybe it's more evidence against needing the full-blown mathematical machinery of game theory?

The machinery is still there, even if you can't see it.

Comment author: satt 08 August 2011 01:21:13AM 1 point [-]

Good point. What I mean is that lots of readers could still get some mileage out of game theory without having to know the rigorous mathematics underlying it (although as you say the mathematics is still there even if someone doesn't know it's there). For example, I don't need to know how to use a fixed point theorem to prove the existence of Nash equilibria for all finite games to be aware of why the prisoner's dilemma is a sticky situation.