If John Nash submitted his paper on Nash equilibria to an AI conference, the reviewers would say “Where’s the formal proof? Where are the experiments?” and reject it. And then the growth of game theory would be stunted.
-
-
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
Everybody knows that by today's standards most Journals/Conferences would reject a lot of novel and interesting work.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
The power of imaginary model created in Nash neuron system over modern AI.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
That’s why free markets are so important - you have the freedom to demonstrate the importance of, and utilize your findings without seeking permission or approval from bureaucratic pedantic stooges. Once it is evident, you can make a “noble contribution” of a short write-up.
-
Exactly. It infuriates me that every time somebody points out a flaw in a theory or common consensus, the response is always to dismiss it outright Like they don't even weight the facts. Something clearly outside the confidence margins? Fuck that, the facts are wrong, clearly
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
Tons of debates about reviews recently. That's a hope for resolving it. So many smart ppl are in the same boat. I doubt if no one can solve it, I could solve it. If not, I will have to live with it. I mean, online reviews (for movies e.g.) in general are getting weird too
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I believe his paper had a rigorous proof (I wouldn’t call it “formal”, but few proofs are ever formalized).
-
If you call this a rigorous proof: "Since the graph is closed and since the image of each point under the mapping is convex, we infer from Kakutani’s theorem that the mapping has a fixed point (i.e., point contained in its image). Hence there is an equilibrium point."
- Näytä vastaukset
Uusi keskustelu -
-
-
He would put it on arxiv, no?
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
-
-
I remember reading somewhere by C. Daskalakis (almost sure it was his paper at the ICM 2018) that his proof (Nash's), as being a non-constructive one, caused a bit of controversy at the time, being considered somewhat obscure.
Kiitos. Käytämme tätä aikajanasi parantamiseen. KumoaKumoa
-
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.