Template talk:Payoff matrix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Talk page moved from Template talk:2x2 game ~ trialsanderrors 08:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
WikiProject Game theory (Rated NA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help!
Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh in
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 Mid  This template has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.


A couple of things I've been deliberating:

  • Should the title of the game appear as a caption?
  • Should payoff matrix appear somewhere in the template?
  • Should the payoffs for both player appear in one field? (PayoffUL = 1, 2)
  • Should the template be renamed "Template:Payoff matrix" to accommodate future expansion to 2x3 and 3x3 games?

Any input is appreciated. ~ trialsanderrors 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Here are my thought:
  • Caption: I don't think its needed. I like the title above better and both would be redundant.
  • "Payoff matrix" I don't know about others, but I usually wikilink payoff matrix when talking about it in the article, so this shouldn't be necessary
  • Single field: This might not be a bad idea, it would enable other types of matrices (where only the row payoff is presented for instance, cf. Payoff matrix).
  • The only nxn game matrix we have is on Nash equilibrium, I think. So, it might be more work than necessary. Perhaps we should only cross this bridge if we need to.
None of my opinions are particularly strong, so if anyone has any strong opinions... --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kevin here, except that I have a weak preference for payoff in separate fields. That being said, I can see how this mucks up the row only matrices. We can rename if (preferably when) we have NxM matrices. Good stuff. Pete.Hurd 02:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean the bottom-left/top-right notation? I usually prefer that one for teaching, since it's more intuitive, but I saw various comments that it's not standard notation. In any case it's definitely codeable. I'd rather settle the name issue now before we start using it in too many articles. ~ trialsanderrors 03:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, bottom left\top right, I like that one best. If it were any of the others, I wouldn't think it worth the effort. ...not that I'm saying row\column is necessarily either. Pete.Hurd 06:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
We might revisit abandoning bottom left/top right notation. I think one of the initial concerns was that the code was very ugly, but with a template this problem disappears. I'm pretty neutral on the two, personally. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I just tried it but ran into problems because CSS doesn't recognize valign commands, so we would have to create a workaround. ~ trialsanderrors 06:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
What I did was create little tables inside of each cell. So for example:
Would be one cell. Hence, incredibly ugly code :) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 07:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahhhh, I'd pull the rip-cord on this and move on to more productive things, one field is good enough for rock & roll... my 2c. Pete.Hurd 22:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

non-game theory use[edit]

I've added a non-game theory use for this template at Common good (economics) (another article on goods that should be merged). ~ trialsanderrors 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)