A Beautiful Math: John Nash, Game Theory, and the Modern Quest for a Code of Nature (Mathematics) Hardcover – International Edition, September 21, 2006

Simple and accessible to the complex subject of Game Theory. A great introduction, perhaps could do with a few links to a few more practical examples/explanations on the actual math (not limited to the 'bus vs walk' matrixes), and a few experiments other than relating to monetary value.

Thank you!

A good introduction to game theory and its many applications. This, and other books like it (e.g. Brian Greene, etc) should become standard textbooks for high school students wanting to know where math goes.

Excellent overview of Mathematics world

good

Excelent

The book jacket tells us that Seigfried won an award "for interpreting [science] for the public." I'm sure that that award was well deserved, for he has a knack for taking complex ideas and presenting them to a less-educated crowd. His two or three page explanations of concepts that took me weeks (and loads of homework/study) to grasp are nothing short of amazing. He often uses examples or analogies rooted in works of fiction to illustrate his points. The way these works are summarized to include only relevant information, and yet still capture the essence of those stories, is marvelous. Also, unlike many books of this genre, after reading it I did not feel like I needed to re-take any classes or brush up on my math. In fact, the most in-depth math involved (calculating a Nash equilibrium) should be crystal clear to a tenth-grader, and it is conveniently relocated to an appendix so that it doesn't bother any take-your-word-for-it readers.

Why only three stars then? Because this is a book review, and explanatory prowess isn't the only thing that it takes to write a book.

The humor in the book is very hit-and-miss. I wouldn't remove it, because when it hits... it's wonderful, but perhaps he should've gotten a humor-editor, someone to help him decide what to include and what to leave out. For example, Seigfried goes about explaining the mathematical differences between what he calls a "Robinson Crusoe economy" (one in which a single person makes decisions about fixed values) and a "Gilligan's island economy" (one in which each person makes decisions based upon other people, who make decisions based on other people, who...). Seigfried states that,

"Mathematically, that meant that no longer could you simply compute ... for Robinson Crusoe. Your calculations had to accommodate ... for Gilligan, the Skipper too, the millionaire, and his wife, the movie star, the Professor, and Mary Ann."

How cool! But then there are other instances. While using a game between fictional characters Alice and Bob to demonstrate some simple game theory, he inserts parenthetically: "(As I said, Alice would probably tell him to shove it)," directly between two rules of the game. We had already been told that this game was not in Alice's favor, and that it was simplified for the purpose of example. The text is peppered about equally with good, relevant, non-interrupting humor, as it is with not-so-good humor.

Furthermore, while he can explain very-high-level science to a high-school-graduate (and two thumbs up for that) his narration seems to be directed at an audience with a damaged memory. I say this because we are told at least four times that Colin Camerer is into Behavioral Game Theory, and that Neuroeconomics is a fledgling hybrid field.
The organization of the book favors the understanding of game theory over the understanding of its history. One is presented with concepts fundamental to game theory, some uses of it, some game theory developments, some views into advanced game theory; it works very well to foster understanding. With each chunk of theory work, Seigfried includes the history (which I was pleasantly surprised at--it's fascinating) that contributed to that chunk of theory. The problem here is that the first section takes place mostly in the eighteenth century, the second-to-last section in the twenty-first, and the last section in the seventeenth and also the twentieth. The jumping around in time was confusing. I can't say what the best organisational method is, but I don't think this is it.

Lastly, and most importantly, is the hype that he gives game theory. I am interested in it, that's why I picked up the book, and the occasional renewal of that interest was nice, but he takes it a step too far. The reader is told time and time again how freakin' amazing game theory is, it's all true. The problem is that after pages of this game theory hype, and a mid-book discrediting of some evolutionary psychologists who dared disagree, I begin to question how strongly his bias is affecting his writing. It doesn't come across too strongly until the final few pages (which, in my mind, bumped it down from a four-star) in which he compares game theory to a unified field theory, or physics' golden "theory of everything." He says game theory is the theory concerned with everything else (i.e. the social/biological/economic half of everything). I agree that it could be a framework to hold "everything else" together, but that's like saying that all baked goods can be divided between pie, and things-with-frosting. It doesn't include the whole picture, and it does so in a deceptive way.

I should, however, admit that I am subject to the same type of biases as the author. When I read, in that last few pages, that:

"Game theory is not, however, the same as the popular 'Theory of Everything' that theoretical physicists have long sought. That quest is mearly for the equations describing all of nature's basic particles and forces, the math describing the building blocks."

I became quite upset: MEARLY?! that theory is only one of the most important goals of science, ever! Well, you can see that my bias clouds my judgement too, interperet as you will...

So buy this book, I can't stress enough how great the explanations within are, but take it with a grain of salt (and perhaps some of your own research).

I first picked up this book because I thought it would be more of a biography of John Nash. The book is more a discussion of how game theory can be used to help understand nature.

The book was very readable and even gave me a historic perspective about where this trend is going. Although there is some very limited math in the book, it is very clearly explained. The books is very readable and engaging.

After reading this book, I know want to know more about game theory and its predictive capabilities. I would highly recommend this book.

When I first picked up this book, I was not expecting the variety of topics that are covered inside. More than simply game theory and Nash equilibrium topics, the book goes into chaos theory, graph theory, and a variety of other topics. What makes the book very accessible are the plentiful examples - both classical and contrived - that are used to explain the various theories. While the casual reader can get something out of this book, there is enough in-depth material to be of interest to more advanced reader as well.