Amazon Vehicles Beauty STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Shop Popular Services MeBeforeYou MeBeforeYou MeBeforeYou  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis Trade it in. Fund the next. Spring Savings Event on Ellen
Customer Review

12 of 18 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars All-around weak, but has a lot of problems and a website, December 23, 2005
This review is from: Game Theory Evolving (Paperback)
Oy, so, as a collection of *a lot* of problems, it's great; and that makes it pretty great. By any other standard, and for any other use than reference (to problems, not ideas), it's junk, however, hardly approaching the normal standards of Princeton's UP, I've gotta think.

There are numerous errors in the problems (I haven't seen any in the answers yet and the monkey problem other reviewers criticize is correct). I happened to skip to Markov chains, for example, and not only was there a pair of typographical errors (some mis-TEXing; not the author's fault, I suppose), but also a mistake in the first example after the description.

The good news is he's fixed the mistakes and gone and written a whole new chapter on "markov economies" and posted it all online. Better news would be a new, more carefully edited, edition, or at least a separate file online of corrections, so one doesn't have to search your (yeah, he seems be active on Amazon) new-made chapters, with their unfortunate numbering conventions (putting two-sentence problems on the same stratum as solution concepts results in some inconvenience & incoherence).

Beyond these editing errors, the book seems to be heavy on text and short on rigor (at least outside of big blocks of text, that is), and citations (he doesn't like other game theorists!). The organization is also poor, even within chapters; as mentioned above a new chapter was inserted since publication.

So, in summary,

Pros: includes originality (he hates theorists of game theory proper!) for the uninitiated, and lots of examples and a website with corrections and updates

Cons: useless for reading, learning or teaching from, etc.

Okay, so no, he doesn't hate game theorists; he just tries hard to evolve his way out of the ambiguities of "classical" game theory. Needless to say, evolution is hard to do on one's own.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the guidelines and FAQs here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in


Track comments by e-mail

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 17, 2007, 3:42:02 AM PST
I am the author. My background is in physics and biology, where rigor is bull****. If you want rigor, study math. The important thing is to be able to use the theory to solve problems that you care about. By the way, most physics departments teach their own math classes precisely because the object to the "rigor" that mathematicians care about. I think it is a mistake to have the basic theory coursres in economics taught by theorists who care about "rigor." They should be taught by people who know the theory well, but care mostly about applying it. It is in this spirit that I wrote Game Theory Evolving. Snobs can get their rigor elsewhere (by the way, conceptual rigor is usually accompanied by an appalling absence of common sense in evaluating the plausibility and applicability of results.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 11, 2008, 7:35:46 AM PDT
Frank says:
I just noticed your reply and want to apologize. My review was immature and more or less incoherent. It's interesting that you go so heavy on "rigor," though, which only came up in passing. What I meant was that you use all the trappings of rigorous theory, but explain them in large blocks of text (instead of with pictures, illustrations of the intuition or definitions, any of which would help us understand what's involved). For example,* the pruning chapter leaves examples as exercises. Also, because no other definitions are given, students cannot answer conceptual questions in their own words, only yours. Of course, that would be okay with a teacher's help, but for independent study...well, I've already given my opinion above. Anyway, I have yet to teach such a class, so I'm in no position to comment. If I do, I hope my liking rigor and such doesn't hold me back.

My main problem with the book wasn't a lack of rigor, but a lack of an editor. Not that my intentions matter.

*I don't have the book with me, so I'm going by Google books.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›

Review Details