DOCSLIB.ORG

Does Game Theory Work?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Does Game Theory Work? AI AND GAME THEORY Editor: Michael Wooldridge, University of Oxford, [email protected] Does Game Theory Work? Michael Wooldridge, University of Oxford he past decade has witnessed a huge explo- of rational choice. Nash equilibrium is the most sion of interest in issues that intersect com- famous example of a solution concept. A Nash T equilibrium is a selection of choices for players puter science and game theory. We see game theory such that no player would prefer to unilaterally tracks at all major AI conferences, and algorithmic deviate from this selection. game theory has been one of the most high-profi le So, given this discussion, how exactly are we to growth areas in theoretical computer science in re- interpret game theory? Two obvious interpreta- cent times. Given this level of interest, it might be tions exist: worth stepping back and asking, “Does game the- ory actually work?” (with apologies to Ken Bin- • Under a descriptive interpretation, we can view more, whose eponymous 2007 book inspired this game theory as attempting to predict how (hu- article1). Here, I discuss some ways of viewing this man) players will behave in strategic settings. question and review research on the topic. • Under a normative interpretation, we can view game theory as prescribing courses of action for It Depends What You players—that is, game theory tells players how Mean By “Work” they ought to act. “Does game theory work?” seems at fi rst sight to be a fairly straightforward question, but we need These two interpretations present very different to be a little more precise before we can begin to criteria for the question of whether game theory answer it. Before we tighten up the question at works. The descriptive interpretation suggests that hand, let’s fi rst recall what game theory is (and we should look for whether game theory success- isn’t). fully predicts how people will make choices in set- Game theory is the mathematical theory of in- tings that we can model as games. The normative teractions between self-interested agents. In par- interpretation suggests that we should examine ticular, it focuses on decision making in settings whether, by following game theory’s prescriptions, where each player’s decision can infl uence the out- we can obtain outcomes that are better than what comes (and hence the well-being) of other players. we might otherwise have obtained. In the remain- In such settings, each player must consider how der of this article, I discuss these two interpretations each other player will act in order to make an op- and ask whether game theory “works” for them. timal choice. In game theory, the term “game” means an abstract mathematical model of a multi- Descriptive Interpretations agent decision-making setting; the aim is typically Does game theory work as a tool for predicting to include in such a model all and only those as- how people will actually behave in game-like set- pects of the domain that are germane to the deci- tings? Conventional wisdom says “no.” However, sions that players must make. Game theory puts the truth is more complex, subtle, and interesting forward a number of solution concepts that are than this simple answer suggests. typically intended to formulate some notion of ra- tional choice in a game-theoretic setting. Social Norms Solution concepts are thus at the heart of game From as far back as the 1950s, when game theory theory. They’re so called because they formulate so- was in its infancy, researchers wanted to investi- lutions to games: game outcomes that could result gate the extent to which the exciting new theorems if the players employed the corresponding notion and models they were developing could predict 76 1541-1672/12/$31.00 © 2012 IEEE IEEE INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS Published by the IEEE Computer Society IS-27-06-Game.indd 76 11/6/12 2:08 PM actual behavior. Merrill Flood con- Of course, we must treat Flood’s received $G/2—that is, the sub- ducted one of the most famous early experiments—and his analysis—with jects would share the “surplus” G, experiments to investigate this ques- a good degree of caution. We can while Subject 1 also received the en- tion.2 This work introduced the pris- easily pick holes in the experimental tire amount M. What actually hap- oner’s dilemma, now regarded as one setup and question the conclusions pened is that the secretaries divided of the most important formal games drawn. But this was among the first the total amount G + M equally be- in the game theory canon. The point attempts to experimentally investi- tween themselves, in fact resulting about the prisoner’s dilemma is that gate whether game theory’s solution in Subject 1 receiving less than he or the standard game-theoretic analysis concepts had any relation to actual she would have simply by refusing to leads to players selecting an outcome observed human behavior, and one strike a deal with Subject 2. When (“mutual defection”) that’s worse for conclusion Flood drew—that the questioned, the secretaries reported both of them than another outcome players were converging to “splitting that they had agreed on this split in (“mutual cooperation”). This fact has the difference”—seems to reflect be- advance, but that if the values M and led many commentators to suggest havioral patterns that we see often G in question were much larger, then that the game-theoretic analysis must when people interact. they wouldn’t have felt compelled to be wrong. We can better understand this be- abide by the agreement. Flood’s con- Flood believed that “the axiomatic havior if we look at an even simpler clusion was that the social relation- structures [of game theory] should be experiment that Flood carried out, ships between the secretaries acted tested for applicability and useful- to bring new factors into the game ness in controlled experimental situa- that weren’t reflected in simply try- tions.”2 Jointly with Melvin Dresher, ing to maximize the portion of M and he organized a series of experiments Social norms play G that the subjects received. In other (admittedly rather ad hoc experi- words, social factors change the utili- ments by today’s rigorous standards) an important role in ties of the secretaries. Once again, with the goal of doing just this. In we can easily criticize the experimen- one experiment, they had two people determining how we tal setup, but this misses the point, play the iterated prisoner’s dilemma which is that even this crude experi- for 100 rounds; that is, they played a behave when interacting ment demonstrates that other factors game with 100 rounds in which each are at work when players determine round was the prisoner’s dilemma. with others. how to act. But what are those fac- The players knew how long they were tors, exactly? going to play for, and were both edu- Subsequent research on this cated and mathematically proficient which involved two secretaries play- topic—and the literature is now individuals with some knowledge of ing the following game: enormous—suggests that social game theory. So, what did they do? norms play an important role in de- Well, they didn’t choose to follow the The experimenter offers to give Subject 1 termining how we behave when in- prescriptions of game theory, which an amount $M but to give Subjects 1 and teracting with others. Social norms in this case points to mutual defec- 2 together a greater amount $M + G if are nothing more than standards of tion in every round of the game. In they can agree how to share the larger behavior: conventions, or customs. fact, mutual cooperation occurred amount. They’re rules of conduct that we nearly two-thirds of the time, adopt and follow as part of our up- although the players’ comments along This is, of course, a rather cruel bringing and culture. We learn social the way (“dope … I’ll be damned! ... game. Subject 1 is clearly in a stron- norms from our parents (“Flush the the stinker! ... he’s crazy … I’ll teach ger position—he or she can always toilet!”), from our friends at school him”) suggest that the road to this gain at least $M, irrespective of (“Everyone should have a turn with outcome wasn’t without some obsta- Subject 2, and Subject 2 needs Sub- the cool toy”), and when we start a cles. Flood’s interpretation was that ject 1’s agreement to gain anything. job (“It isn’t the done thing to hog the players were “rapidly learning … Flood assumed that the secretaries the printer all the time”). Going back and converging to a split-the-difference would strike a deal in which Subject 1 to our two secretaries, it seems likely [outcome].”2 received $M + (G/2), while Subject 2 that the social norm would simply NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 www.computer.org/intelligent 77 IS-27-06-Game.indd 77 11/6/12 2:08 PM say that a windfall of this kind allows them to coordinate on a particu- how people make decisions. This is should be shared equally. As the lar outcome. easy to demonstrate. Consider the stakes become higher, though, the following game:4 temptation to transgress becomes The outcome in question will often greater. So what happens if one of be one that’s efficient; such norms You are given a choice between options the subjects transgresses—if Subject 1 can potentially explain why people A and B. insists on receiving $M + (G/2), for actually manage to cooperate (as op- example? Nothing compels us to posed to defecting) in the prisoner’s A: We flip a fair coin.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Game Theory- Prisoners Dilemma Vs Battle of the Sexes EXCERPTS
    Lesson 14. Game Theory 1 Lesson 14 Game Theory c 2010, 2011 ⃝ Roberto Serrano and Allan M. Feldman All rights reserved Version C 1. Introduction In the last lesson we discussed duopoly markets in which two firms compete to sell a product. In such markets, the firms behave strategically; each firm must think about what the other firm is doing in order to decide what it should do itself. The theory of duopoly was originally developed in the 19th century, but it led to the theory of games in the 20th century. The first major book in game theory, published in 1944, was Theory of Games and Economic Behavior,byJohnvon Neumann (1903-1957) and Oskar Morgenstern (1902-1977). We will return to the contributions of Von Neumann and Morgenstern in Lesson 19, on uncertainty and expected utility. Agroupofpeople(orteams,firms,armies,countries)areinagame if their decision problems are interdependent, in the sense that the actions that all of them take influence the outcomes for everyone. Game theory is the study of games; it can also be called interactive decision theory. Many real-life interactions can be viewed as games. Obviously football, soccer, and baseball games are games.Butsoaretheinteractionsofduopolists,thepoliticalcampaignsbetweenparties before an election, and the interactions of armed forces and countries. Even some interactions between animal or plant species in nature can be modeled as games. In fact, game theory has been used in many different fields in recent decades, including economics, political science, psychology, sociology, computer science, and biology. This brief lesson is not meant to replace a formal course in game theory; it is only an in- troduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisoners of Reason Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy
    C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/6549131/WORKINGFOLDER/AMADAE/9781107064034PRE.3D iii [1–28] 11.8.2015 9:57PM Prisoners of Reason Game Theory and Neoliberal Political Economy S. M. AMADAE Massachusetts Institute of Technology C:/ITOOLS/WMS/CUP-NEW/6549131/WORKINGFOLDER/AMADAE/9781107064034PRE.3D iv [1–28] 11.8.2015 9:57PM 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, ny 10013-2473, usa Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge. It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence. www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781107671195 © S. M. Amadae 2015 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2015 Printed in the United States of America A catalog record for this publication is available from the British Library. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Amadae, S. M., author. Prisoners of reason : game theory and neoliberal political economy / S.M. Amadae. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-1-107-06403-4 (hbk. : alk. paper) – isbn 978-1-107-67119-5 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Game theory – Political aspects. 2. International relations. 3. Neoliberalism. 4. Social choice – Political aspects. 5. Political science – Philosophy. I. Title. hb144.a43 2015 320.01′5193 – dc23 2015020954 isbn 978-1-107-06403-4 Hardback isbn 978-1-107-67119-5 Paperback Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for external or third-party Internet Web sites referred to in this publication and does not guarantee that any content on such Web sites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Repeated Games
    REPEATED GAMES 1 Early PD experiments In 1950, Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher (at RAND) devised an experiment to test Nash’s theory about defection in a two-person prisoners’ dilemma. Experimental Design – They asked two friends to play the PD 100 times. – They measured the success of Nash’s equilibrium concept by counting the number of times the players chose {D;D}. 2 Flood and Dresher’s results Player 1 cooperated in 68 rounds Player 2 cooperated in 78 rounds Both cooperated in 60 of last 89 rounds Flood Dresher Nash 3 Flood and Dresher’s results Player 1 cooperated in 68 rounds Player 2 cooperated in 78 rounds Both cooperated in 60 of last 89 rounds Wait a Ha! That jerk I can’tI’mOh a be Ha! Nash second... Nash was genius...%&@#!wrong! was wrong! wrong! Flood Dresher Nash 4 Nash’s response “If this experiment were conducted with various different players rotating the competition and with no information given to a player of what choices the others have been making until the end of all trials, then the experimental results would have been quite different, for this modification of procedure would remove the interaction between the trials.” 5 Nash’s response “The flaw in this experiment as a test of equilibrium point theory is that the experiment really amounts to having the players play one large multimove game. One cannot...think of the thing as a sequence of independent games...there is too much interaction.” In other words, Nash said that repeating the game changes the game itself.
    [Show full text]
  • A Beautiful Math : John Nash, Game Theory, and the Modern Quest for a Code of Nature / Tom Siegfried
    A BEAUTIFULA BEAUTIFUL MATH MATH JOHN NASH, GAME THEORY, AND THE MODERN QUEST FOR A CODE OF NATURE TOM SIEGFRIED JOSEPH HENRY PRESS Washington, D.C. Joseph Henry Press • 500 Fifth Street, NW • Washington, DC 20001 The Joseph Henry Press, an imprint of the National Academies Press, was created with the goal of making books on science, technology, and health more widely available to professionals and the public. Joseph Henry was one of the founders of the National Academy of Sciences and a leader in early Ameri- can science. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this volume are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences or its affiliated institutions. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Siegfried, Tom, 1950- A beautiful math : John Nash, game theory, and the modern quest for a code of nature / Tom Siegfried. — 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-309-10192-1 (hardback) — ISBN 0-309-65928-0 (pdfs) 1. Game theory. I. Title. QA269.S574 2006 519.3—dc22 2006012394 Copyright 2006 by Tom Siegfried. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Preface Shortly after 9/11, a Russian scientist named Dmitri Gusev pro- posed an explanation for the origin of the name Al Qaeda. He suggested that the terrorist organization took its name from Isaac Asimov’s famous 1950s science fiction novels known as the Foun- dation Trilogy. After all, he reasoned, the Arabic word “qaeda” means something like “base” or “foundation.” And the first novel in Asimov’s trilogy, Foundation, apparently was titled “al-Qaida” in an Arabic translation.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Theory and Its Practical Applications
    University of Northern Iowa UNI ScholarWorks Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006) Honors Program 1997 Game theory and its practical applications Angela M. Koos University of Northern Iowa Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy Copyright ©1997 Angela M. Koos Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pst Part of the Other Economics Commons Recommended Citation Koos, Angela M., "Game theory and its practical applications" (1997). Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006). 100. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/pst/100 This Open Access Presidential Scholars Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at UNI ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Presidential Scholars Theses (1990 – 2006) by an authorized administrator of UNI ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Game Theory and its Practical Applications A Presidential Scholar Senior Thesis University of Northern Iowa by Angela M. Koos Spring 1997 Dr. Ken Brown, 7 Dfrte Thesis and Major Advisor ,~-,, Dr. Ed Rathmell, Date Chair of Presidential Scholars Board Table of Contents Section Page(s) I. Historical Overview 1 I.A. Early Contributions to Game Theory 1 - 3 LB. John von Neumann, the RAND Corporation, and the Arms Race 3 - 7 LC. John Nash 7 - 8 I.D. Other Contributions to Game Theory 9 II. Defining Game Theory 9 - 12 II.A. Formal Representations of Games 12 - 13 II.A. I. Extensive Form 13 - 24 II.A.2. Normal Form 24 - 25 III. The Minimax Theorem 25 - 26 III.A. Preliminary Comments 26 - 27 III.B. The Theorem 27 - 28 IV.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Is Behavioral Game Theory a Game for Economists? the Concept of Beliefs in Equilibrium∗
    Why is behavioral game theory a game for economists? The concept of beliefs in equilibrium∗ Michiru Nagatsu Chiara Lisciandray May 7, 2021 Abstract The interdisciplinary exchange between economists and psychologists has so far been more active and fruitful in the modifications of Expected Util- ity Theory than in those of Game Theory. We argue that this asymmetry may be explained by economists' specific way of doing equilibrium analysis of aggregate-level outcomes in their practice, and by psychologists' reluctance to fully engage with such practice. We focus on the notion of belief that is em- bedded in economists' practice of equilibrium analysis, more specifically Nash equilibrium, and argue that its difference from the psychological counterpart is one of the factors that makes interdisciplinary exchange in behavioral game theory more difficult. 1 Introduction One of the most influential texts published in the behavioral and social sciences in the first half of the twentieth century was, according to many, Von Neumann and Morgenstern's (vNM) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1944). Not only did the book lay the foundation of game theory, which has become the essential research tool in contemporary economics, it also influenced several other disciplines beyond economics, from political science to linguistics and biology. Two of the most important contributions of Theory of Games and Economic Be- havior to economics are the axiomatic derivation of expected utility (in the second edition of 1947) and the minimax solution to zero-sum games. John Nash general- ized vNM's existence proof of equilibrium in non-zero-sum games in 1951, thereby ∗To appear in Egashira, Taishido, Hands and M¨aki(eds.) (2018) A Genealogy of Self-interest in Economics (Springer).
    [Show full text]
  • Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market
    This is a repository copy of EU Competition Policy: Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/160267/ Article: Stewart-Moreno, Alexander (2020) EU Competition Policy: Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market. York Law Review, 1. pp. 49-82. 10.15124/yao-y99rnjtm Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ EU Competition Policy: Algorithmic Collusion in the Digital Single Market Alexander Stewart-Moreno Abstract E-commerce promises a digital environment with ‘more perfect’ market characteristics. Although consumers may benefit from digital efficiencies, firms’ exploitation of such benefits may require new policy to regulate in line with the European Commission’s Digital Single Market Strategy. Price-setting algorithms are central to this dichotomy, as faster and more transparent pricing strategies could conceivably maintain algorithmic price-fixing cartels – which Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union may prove inadequate in tackling.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Game Theory
    Chronology of Game Theory http://www.econ.canterbury.ac.nz/personal_pages/paul_walker/g... Home | UC Home | Econ. Department | Chronology of Game Theory | Nobel Prize A Chronology of Game Theory by Paul Walker September 2012 | Ancient | 1700 | 1800 | 1900 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 | 1980 | 1990 | Nobel Prize | 2nd Nobel Prize | 3rd Nobel Prize | 0-500AD The Babylonian Talmud is the compilation of ancient law and tradition set down during the first five centuries A.D. which serves as the basis of Jewish religious, criminal and civil law. One problem discussed in the Talmud is the so called marriage contract problem: a man has three wives whose marriage contracts specify that in the case of this death they receive 100, 200 and 300 respectively. The Talmud gives apparently contradictory recommendations. Where the man dies leaving an estate of only 100, the Talmud recommends equal division. However, if the estate is worth 300 it recommends proportional division (50,100,150), while for an estate of 200, its recommendation of (50,75,75) is a complete mystery. This particular Mishna has baffled Talmudic scholars for two millennia. In 1985, it was recognised that the Talmud anticipates the modern theory of cooperative games. Each solution corresponds to the nucleolus of an appropriately defined game. 1713 In a letter dated 13 November 1713 Francis Waldegrave provided the first, known, minimax mixed strategy solution to a two-person game. Waldegrave wrote the letter, about a two-person version of the card game le Her, to Pierre-Remond de Montmort who in turn wrote to Nicolas Bernoulli, including in his letter a discussion of the Waldegrave solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Several Remarks on the Role of Certain Positional
    Foundations of Management, Vol. 8 (2016), ISSN 2080-7279 DOI: 10.1515/fman-2016-0022 289 SEVERAL REMARKS ON THE ROLE OF CERTAIN POSITIONAL AND SOCIAL GAMES IN THE CREATION OF THE SELECTED STATISTICAL AND ECONOMIC APPLICATIONS Ewa DRABIK Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Management, Warsaw, Poland e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The game theory was created on the basis of social as well as gambling games, such as chess, poker, baccarat, hex, or one-armed bandit. The aforementioned games lay solid foundations for analogous mathematical models (e.g., hex), artificial intelligence algorithms (hex), theoretical anal- ysis of computational complexity attributable to various numerical problems (baccarat), as well as illustration of several economic dilemmas particularly in the case where the winner takes every- thing (e.g., noughts and crosses). A certain gambling games, such as a horse racing, may be successful- ly applied to verify a wide spectrum of market mechanism, for example, market effectiveness or customer behavior in light of incoming information regarding a specific product. One of a lot appli- cations of the slot machine (one-armed bandit) is asymptotically efficient allocation rule, which was as- signed by T.L. Lai and H. Robbins (1985). In the next years, the rule was developed by another and was named a multi-armed. The aim of the paper is to discuss these social games along with their potential mathematical models, which are governed by the rules predominantly applicable to the social and natural sciences. Key words: positional games, social games, gambling games, one-armed bandit, chess. 1 Introduction Melvin Dresher working at RAND in 1950), gender discrimination game, chicken game, or Colonel Blot- The humanity has been accompanied by gambling to game were created.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning with Bandit Feedback in Potential Games
    Learning with Bandit Feedback in Potential Games Johanne Cohen LRI-CNRS, Université Paris-Sud,Université Paris-Saclay, France [email protected] Amélie Héliou LIX, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, AMIBio, Inria, Université Paris-Saclay [email protected] Panayotis Mertikopoulos Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Inria, LIG, F-38000, Grenoble, France [email protected] Abstract This paper examines the equilibrium convergence properties of no-regret learning with exponential weights in potential games. To establish convergence with mini- mal information requirements on the players’ side, we focus on two frameworks: the semi-bandit case (where players have access to a noisy estimate of their payoff vectors, including strategies they did not play), and the bandit case (where players are only able to observe their in-game, realized payoffs). In the semi-bandit case, we show that the induced sequence of play converges almost surely to a Nash equilibrium at a quasi-exponential rate. In the bandit case, the same result holds for "-approximations of Nash equilibria if we introduce an exploration factor " > 0 that guarantees that action choice probabilities never fall below ". In particular, if the algorithm is run with a suitably decreasing exploration factor, the sequence of play converges to a bona fide Nash equilibrium with probability 1. 1 Introduction Given the manifest complexity of computing Nash equilibria, a central question that arises is whether such outcomes could result from a dynamic process in which players act on empirical information on their strategies’ performance over time. This question becomes particularly important when the players’ view of the game is obstructed by situational uncertainty and the “fog of war”: for instance, when deciding which route to take to work each morning, a commuter is typically unaware of how many other commuters there are at any given moment, what their possible strategies are, how to best respond to their choices, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Prisoner's Dilemma in Software Testing
    Prisoner's Dilemma in Software Testing Loe Feijs Eindhoven University of Technology Abstract In this article the problem of software testing is modeled as a formal strategic game. It is found that for certain values of the productivity and reward parameters the game is essentially equivalent to the Prisoner's Dilemma. This means that the game has a unique Nash equilibrium, which is not optimal for both players, however. Two formal games are described and analyzed in detaiJ, both capturing certain (though not all) aspects of real software testing procedures. Some of the literature on the Prisoner's Dilemma is reviewed and the re<>uits are translated to the context of software testing. Keywords: software testing, software quality, game theory, Nash equilibrium, prisoner's dilemma. 1 Introduction Software is playing an increasingly important role in modern society. Not only in office software and computer games, but also in embedded systems such as in televisions, telephony exchanges, cars, etc. computer programs of considerable size are essential. Software bugs constitute a serious problem [1]. Software testing is frequently used to find errors so they can be repaired and hopefully, the software quality improved. In view of the societal relevance of software quality, it makes sense to consider software quality as an economic issue and to use rational methods when studying it. In this article we use concepts from game theory for that purpose. The problem of software testing is modeled"" a formal strategic game. One of the findings of this article is that this game is of a special nature, known as Prisoner's Dilemma [2].
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Notices
    AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Notices Edited by J. H. CURTISS ....... ,........................................................................................................................................................ ISSUE NO. 27 NOVEMBER, 1957 .................................................................................................................................................................. CONTENTS MEETINGS Calendar of Meetings ...................................................... 2 Program of the November Meeting in Los Angeles ....•.•.•.•.... 3 Program of the November Meeting in Coral Gables ............. 9 Program of the November Meeting in Columbia ................. 13 PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETING ...................... l6 NEWS ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS ................................... J7 PERSONAL ITEMS .............................................................. 23 NEW PUBLICATIONS .......................................................... 27 MEMORANDA TO MEMBERS ................................................ 29 Published by the Society ANN ARBOR MICHIGAN and PROVIDENCE. RHODE ISLAND Printed in the United States of America MEETINGS CALENDAR OF MEETINGS NOTE: This Calendar lists all of the meetings which have been approved by the Council up to the date at which this issue of the NO­ TICES was sent to press. The meeting dates which fall rather far in the future are subject to change. This is particularly true of the meet­ ings to which no numbers have yet been assigned. Meet- Deadline ing Date Place
    [Show full text]