text:
Talk:Secretary problem

Untitled
I disagree with the comment in the section 'Deriving the optimal policy' where it says (second best overall). This is not necessarily the case, the second best overall may occur AFTER i (the best), but we may still choose i as long as the best in the (i-1) options falls in the first (r-1) as stated. Hsenrab (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like Amazon's gold box. --Mr. Vernon 05:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This issue gets attention in mainstream-ish press every now and then, due to its application to finding a life partner (hence the names "marriage problem" and "fussy suitor problem"). I wonder if the romantic implications should be fleshed out a bit, or at least mentioned after the first sentence. --AlexChurchill 14:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

 * This is covered in the references I added. I think an additional sentence is still a good idea. Spot (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Actually I think it's worth a whole section, especially in light of what Ketelaar and Todd have to say, ie that using the 37% Rule you end up waiting on average 75% before finding a match, and the chances of being squeezed out at the end are high. Making a faster decision substantially reduces the worst case, and in fact biological systems seem to do this.  Spot (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I had some trouble determining what it meant to 'skip' an applicant, whether to skip their interview, or ignore their ranking. It seems it has to mean simply to not select them. Couldn't we just say that? Also, wouldn't that mean you have a 1/e probability of ending up without a secretary? I don't think that's acceptable. –Sarregouset (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always know it as the marriage problem -- is maybe more politically correct nowadays, I believe the original secretary problem was not about hiring for typing speed. Should we change the title? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.167.9.250 (talk) 09:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC) What you personally might have known it as seems like an overly subjective criterion, and "secretary problem" is the classic name (See Cormen, Leiserson and many other core references in computer science and discrete mathematics et al.). and how is that not politically correct, assuming that was even a valid criterion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC28:1850:6233:4BFF:FE25:3DC7 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Making precise+Unknown number+1/e-law
Making precise: The optimality of a strategy to wait until a number r of applicants and then to select a candidate is n o t proven here. This is why I have added " it can be shown ...."

Unknown number of options: This question is probably the most often asked about the secretary problems (at least acccording to my experience) and should therefore figure in this article. The same holds for the 1/e-law.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make these two paragraphs a separate Wikipedia article under the title 1/e-law. 81.243.238.145 (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC) 91.177.137.217 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Remark (date 7 March 2009) to modification done 6th March 2009: Note that the term "37%-rule" should not be inserted under the subsection for an unknown number of applicants. In real time this stays compatible only if the arrival time density f is uniform on [0,T]. (Of course you are right in the sense that it is still an expected 37% of applications, but the clarity would suffer) 91.176.39.254 (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is 37% Rule is less clear than 1/e strategy? Both refer to the same thing. Spot (talk) 18:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Deriving the Expression
Could someone provide an explanation of the terms in the sum for the probability of finding the optimal candidate? The (1/n) term I can guess comes from each candidate having a 1/n probability of being the best, but the second term befuddles me. Thanks! Matt.matolcsi (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the formula to explain this more clearly. ZfKswHexTW (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 * Why did you tag your edit as “minor”? DES (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be nice to explicitly state that the assumptions of the (1/n) term. If, for example, you have some reason to expect the candidates will get better as you get nearer to N, a different distribution should be used, perhaps something like 2i/(N(N+1)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.238.180 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Missing Assumption
I believe that the development of the solution is making an assumption not listed in the premises: That there is no upper bound to the quality of candidates. Suppose that you have a job to fill and that you have some quantifiable requirements. It is possible that one or many candidates fulfill those requirements completely. Then, you should accept such a candidate whenever he/she appears, for you can never do better, and there is a substantial chance that you may not find another 100% suited candidate later. Actually, even if you accept that there can always be a better candidate (ie, no upper bound on suitability), the proposed solution may be wrong depending on the assumed distribution of candidate's suitability. For instance, suppose you are to interview a total of 100 candidates. The given solution calls for unconditionally rejecting the first 37 or so. But suppose you also estimate that the percentage of very good candidates (for some definition of 'very good') is just 0.01% of the general population. Then, if the, say, second candidate that you interview is very good, does it make any sense to send him away? The expected chance of having some other very good candidate among those still waiting for an interview is very small, less than 1%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.239.14 (talk) 17:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point there. I would also add that another unstated assumption seems to be that the selector has 100% accuracy in discerning candidate quality. 74.12.5.218 (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 * Right, the stated solution to the Secretary Problem is the best possible only when there is no a priori knowledge of the distribution of values (eg, candidate's scores). Martin Gardner's formulation of the problem (as the Googol problem) makes this much clearer, since in the real world, in general, a prospective employer will have at least some notion of the job market he's hiring from. When this (even approximate) a priori knowledge is available, one can in fact do better (systematically) than the stated solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.168.138.50 (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Heuristics
This is not my area, but CSP is used without being defined, I have no idea what it is.--Billymac00 (talk) 06:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

 * It's been added in this edit, possibly it means Constraint satisfaction problem...? --CiaPan (talk) 11:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently it means "classical secretary problem", i.e., the problem as described at the top of the page, since (a) it refers to the n/e solution already noted as optimal, and (b) the phrase "classical secretary problem" does appear elsewhere in the article. I've replaced CSP with this expansion.  Joule36e5 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Generalizations / Variants
The article now has three *non-consecutive* sections about generalizations / variants: "cardinal payoff variant", "other modifications", and (4 sections later!) "combinatorial generalization". it would be great to somehow compile these together into a coherent section about generalizations. also, it should probably include more central variants: i know that in computer science the "matroid secretary problem" has been very popular - maybe someone with operation research background can make better suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE74:C530:0:0:0:3E8 (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

a paradox of T. Cover.
"... which is closely related to a paradox of T. Cover."

What is "a paradox of T. Cover"? Is T. Cover a name of somebody? --Quest for Truth (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Possibly it's Thomas M. Cover, probably the author referenced by Alexander V. Gnedin (Secretary problem) – see the linked page for a PDF file, open it and scroll down to the page 8. In References you'll find
 * Cover, T.M. (1987). Pick the largest number. In Open Problems in Communication and Computation (T.M. Cover and B. Gopinath, eds.) Springer, New York
 * And a little of googling returns (a.o.) this link:
 * http://www-isl.stanford.edu/~cover/papers/paper73.pdf
 * HTH. --CiaPan (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Thanks! I've added a link to Thomas M. Cover. It's a shame that Wikipedia does not have an article about "the paradox", not even a mention in Thomas M. Cover's article. --Quest for Truth (talk) 17:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * There exists an article Two envelopes problem about a specific version of the paradox (with arbitrary numbers $A$ and $B$ replaced with $x$ and $2x$, for some unknown $x$). The article has been created in 2005, and a reference wikilink to T.M.Cover was added by in May 2011 (Special:Diff/428222564). --CiaPan (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

 * I have been writing a long paper on the various versions of this paradox, take a look at . Maybe I will finish it one day. Note: "the two envelopes problem" is actually also the name for a whole family of related problems, of which Cover's is just one variant. That's why it is cited in the Wikipedia article on TEP. Richard Gill (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Abstraction boundary
I just added the following text to the bottom of the lead:

It's assumed in this algorithm that the applicants have no knowledge of the decision algorithm employed, because the algorithm depends on the early applicants (who have no chance at all) bothering to actually show up, and then behaving as if the job is winnable. It also assumes that candidates always put forward the same performance, regardless of their own assessment of the depth of the competition, whereas in real life, people faced with long odds (or what they perceive or construe as long odds) tend to take greater risks in order to stand out.

It some ways, that's probably not suitable text. But perhaps it's better than nothing in pointing out some of the paradoxical assumptions involved in achieving this clean, simple abstract solution.

The first moment I really thought about the algorithm, the part about assigning zero chance at all to the first n/e applicants, from the point of view of the applicants I LOLed because of my economics training.

Way to wins friends and motivate people: involve them in an interaction where you have a high margin on the quality of their behaviour, but they have no upside at all on the quality of the performance they put forward.

Clearly this can't work under any kind of accurate disclosure at all.

"I've invited you here to prime the pump—with no chance of winning this job for yourself whatsoever—but do please put forward your most earnest supplication betters it matters to my own algorithm a great deal."

It's almost an economic paradox to think this could ever work.

One could even question whether this algorithm is ethical in all cases.

Probably something should be said about this, somewhere in the article. — MaxEnt 13:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Probability of success of the "postdoc" variant (in the section "other modifications")
Why isn't the formula $$\frac{0.25n^2}{n(n-1)}$$ simplified to $$\frac{0.25n}{n-1}$$? MaigoAkisame (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Whatever Happened to Common Sense ?
This "secretary problem" just needs the application of common sense. The algorithm totally fails if all the best applicants are in the first third to be interviewed !

As the interviews are random, the best applicant is equally likely to be the first, the last, or the middle one.

The best solution is so simple: interview all the applicants, then select the most suitable.

This whole "problem" (and many like it) demonstrate the way that many academics have their heads in the clouds and have lost touch with reality and plain simple common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman101 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s a fun math problem. Learning how to solve it teaches you how to approach real world problems, too. Of course it is totally unrealistic. Nobody takes it seriously. Part of the point is that if you are only satisfied with the best you’re often going to end up disappointed. Richard Gill (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Harvard refs
In-line Harvard citations were deprecated two years ago. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets and WP:PARREF. I have changed a few of these, but it would be good to convert the rest of them. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Secretary problem


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup List
Hi, the links for the cleanup list on the project page are not working. Can I fix them with this link http://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/cwb/bycat/Metalworking.html ? THX JP1308 (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Project restart
Hi everybody, I will try to restart this great project and I hope you will support this project too :-) THX JP1308 (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

 * I'm on board to contribute to topics regarding metal cutting in general. I'm also fairly confident to talk about topics relating to CNC, specifically milling and turning. I'm going to go through the list of articles for a bit and try improving them. If anyone wants to work with me on this, hit me up!
 * Стиво (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

When is a screw machine not a screw machine?
I'm thinking a link is misdirected.

Article Screw-cutting_lathe contains two links for the term Screw Machine.

In-text there is a link to Screw_machine_(turning_center) which then redirects to Metal_lathe.

The See also has a link to Screw_machine_(disambiguation) which then redirects to Screw_machine. (Apparently there's a screwy history to this - "Screw machine" was the original article and then was split and cut down to disambig page from the 2010 version of page )

That disambiguation page then has links to
 * Screw_machine_(automatic_lathe) which redirects to Automatic_lathe
 * Screw_machine_(turning_center) which redirects to Metal_lathe

Uh... so what should "Screw Machine" in the Screw-cutting lathe in-text point to?

Have we reached peak split/merge/redirect yet? This is turning my stomach. Shenme (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Its the same. I dont think there actually are any lathes that can only cut screws and nothing else. The only difference in this class of small part, mass production lathes really is the implementation of the automatism method, be it old mechanically with cam gears and alike "repeating movement" gears, Punched tape(NC) or CNC and the tool construction (multiple toolheads, revolver, toolswitcher with magazine) which was always common since the parts produced with these machines (far from only screws btw.) are usually manufactured in a few seconds and thus among the earliest automated machines. Producing these manually only makes sense for unique single parts or very small series. I would recommend to simply delete that term, make a redirect at best. --Kharon (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

moved from project page here to the talk page and replied
MaterialGrades.com is a reliable website for different industrial material grades. References for this website in several articles of Wikipedia actually adds authentication and value to the articles lacking sources. It increases the depth of the technical areas discussing material grades. Those articles are already lacking depth and reference sources. Therefore I need your expert opinion on these contributions which is in no way spamming. Waqasatb (talk) 06:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * For some context, several single-purpose accounts with similar usernames, including Waqasatb, have repeatedly added links to materialgrades.com to multiple articles. Since this comes across as spamming, I reverted these additions and asked Waqasatb to get consensus from other editors that the external links is useful and appropriate before continuing.  Can anyone from this project comment on the suitability of external link?  Deli nk (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

 * If there are several of them, Deli nk, you probably want Sockpuppet investigations. There is also blacklisting for links that keep getting added. This is for future reference, as I trust this is long resolved. HLHJ (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Metalworking Barnstar

I don't know if this project is active anymore, but I made the Metalworking Barnstar. Awarded to users who've shown great editing skills in improving metalworking related-articles. Jerm (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Jerm! It caused me to find this project when searching commons for an image. HLHJ (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Incandescent metal pictures, please?
Hello, metalworking editors. I'm looking for a series of photos of metal (any metal!) at different temperatures against a darkish background, illustrating the range of colours and how they change with temperature. I'm trying to show the viewer that the temperature can be judged surprisingly closely by the colour. Ideally, such a series would contain a few shots of the metal being too cold to glow at different temperatures (to show that metal at, say, freezing, room-temperature, and boiling temperatures is equally dark, though it radiates more heat when hotter, and will look brighter on an infra-red camera/night goggles). I haven't been able to find anything like this. Can anyone who could point me to such an image which I could use in an article? HLHJ (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 * I know this is a bit late but are you sure this applies to all metals, even heat-resistant superalloys? X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 11:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

 * , I think it probably would. The colour is determined by a basic physical process, black-body radiation. Ceramics and other materials show the same colours; pretty much anything, heated above the Draper point, will be visibly incandescent in this pattern. Planck's law has some explaination of why. I don't know of any exceptions. Of course not all radiation is incandescence. so there are other emission spectra, there's fluorescence and emission lines and so on. I think such effects get visually drowned out by incandecense at temperatures over the Draper point, but there may be exceptions I don't know about. I know some heat-resistant materials are deliberately made with high emissivity, which means they emit more efficiently and more like a perfect blackbody. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics might be able to give you a more definitive answer, and I'd be interested. HLHJ (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Ancient metal sculpting terminology and related less-than-ancient English terminology
This is perhaps of interest to no one be me. I have been encountering terminology related to this Wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toreutics#cite_note-13 The source is 19th century and named The Imperial Dictionary of Universal Biography. Within this source are found the adjective toreutic and noun toreutes. These words do not appear anywhere else in the IDUB. Three of them are authored by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffaelle_Monti The following information is discoverable but I don't know how to determine whether copyright precludes reference: Klarm768 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Imperial_Dictionary_of_Universal_Biography_Volume_1.pdf/102
 * https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Imperial_Dictionary_of_Universal_Biography_Volume_1.pdf/223
 * https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Imperial_Dictionary_of_Universal_Biography_Volume_1.pdf/240
 * https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Imperial_Dictionary_of_Universal_Biography_Volume_1.pdf/317
 * https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Imperial_Dictionary_of_Universal_Biography_Volume_1.pdf/449
 * τορευτής, Latin tŏreuta, ae, m., = τορευτής, one who makes embossed work, a chaser, graver, Plin. 35, 8, 34, § 54.
 * τορευτικός, ή, όν, prop. of or for metal-work, skilled therein: but Lat. toreutice, sculpture in general, Plin. HN 34.54; opp. graphice (painting), ib. 35.77; cf. τορεύω II, and v. τορνευτικός.
 * τορευτής, one who works in relief, Plb.26.1.2, CIG3306 (Smyrna), D.H.Comp.25, Sardis 7(1) No. 56.10 (ii A. D.); cf. τορνευτής.
 * τορευτικός, of or for metal-work, skilled therein: but Lat. toreutice, sculpture in general, Plin.HN34.54; opp. graphice (painting), ib. 35.77; cf. “τορεύω” 11, and v. τορνευτικός.

 * Klarm768, copyright can never prevent the copying of individual facts, or citation of a source. Database copyright, protecting original collections of facts, does not exist in many jurisdictions. Additionally, a way of stating a fact can only be copyright if it is sufficiently original (something like "London is the capital of England" is too simple to qualify, it's like trying to copyright an image of a red square). Plus, if your source 19th-century, it's in the public domain anyway and you can quote it verbatim in an article (giving credit in the edit summary and refs is WP good practice but not a legal requirement). This info would certainly be of interest to editors on Wiktionary; try Wiktionary:τορέω for a redlink list for your Greek vocabulary, and Wiktionary:toreutic and Wiktionary:toreutics for the English (an entry at does not seem to exist yet). I'm sure creating entries for such redlinks would be useful to the project. If you have any questions, you can ask at the Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Information desk, too. I'm not very experienced on Wiktionary, but if you post on my talk page I'll do my best to help. HLHJ (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not easy to find the "Ironmasters" category from the "Iron founder" page
I've suggested that "Ironmaster" and "Iron founder" might be merged, based on their current content. Whether or not this is a good idea, as things stand it is possible to read the "Iron founder" page without becoming aware of the more extensive Ironmaster page or of the various categories of Ironmasters pages. These two topics need to be crosslinked at the very least. Theoh (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review for shielded metal arc welding
I have nominated Shielded metal arc welding for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c)  buidhe  23:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Project scope
I noticed that tagged Nittany Furnace as an article for this project recently. Nittany Furnace was a hot-blast pig iron producer. My intuitive notion of "metalworking" is that it consists in processes carried out on metal that's already been more or less smelted or otherwise extracted from ore; I'd consider the production of wrought iron, or even cast iron objects, to be in scope, but I don't think furnaces like this, that were primarily for smelting, ought to qualify. Any thoughts? Choess (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not well informed about this topic; perhaps the processes of getting metals from their ores belong to WP Technology instead.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

former thread UNEF is not mentioned in the table.
It is a pity that the size UN (former UNEF) 5/8 32 2B is not included in the table. Is anybody able to do that? Thanks This is nowadays often used in camera's, lenses, microscopes, a.s.o. Gaardenier@Skynet.be — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:83A3:9100:9DF2:8F1B:E584:860A (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Blast furnace
Blast furnace, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 * One editor has made some improvements. But it needs more to keep GA. Can anyone else help out? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Tandem rolling mill
The article Tandem rolling mill needs cleanup to adhere to wikipedia standards, especially our policy WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not a text book / instruction manual). After my PROD was contested I am posting here as you are the experts who may be able to clean this up. Or possibly merge elsewhere. I'll leave it to you. Polyamorph (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Since then I have added many new sections and re-arrange others. I have also changed the text to better describe "what is done" and not "what should be done". AutoElectEngr (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

-   Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

a list of the largest blast furnaces
how many would be in that list? for any given number of minimum daily capacity, but not limited to presently operating units.

should wikipedia not strive to compile such a list?

i was recently trying to learn how many of those were operational in the Kaiser Fontana mill in California or in the Geneva mill in Utah.

The Geneva article informed me that Kevin Bacon once danced in the plant, but neither of the two articles above did tell me how many giant blast furnaces were being run there. What gives? Nowakki (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking


text:
The Wizard of Oz (TV series)

The Wizard of Oz is a 1990 American animated television series produced by DIC Animation City to capitalize on the popularity of the 1939 film version, to which DiC had acquired the rights from Turner Entertainment, Co. The series aired for thirteen episodes and premiered on ABC, starting on September 8, 1990. The show presented a number of stories and characters from L. Frank Baum's original Oz series.

Author Jeff Lenburg mentioned an aspect of the series wherein Dorothy has to learn to believe in herself.

Plot
Dorothy has decided to return to Oz with Toto using the ruby slippers that showed up on her doorstep. She invokes her return by clicking her heels and reciting "There is no place like Oz". Upon arriving there, she reunites with Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion. Dorothy learns from Glinda that the Wicked Witch of the West has been resurrected by Truckle and his fellow winged monkeys. With the Wicked Witch of the West back from the dead, the Emerald City has been taken over by her and she has stolen the gifts that were given to Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion. The Wizard is in his hot air balloon, which is under a spell that causes it to be constantly blown around by an evil wind. Dorothy, Toto, Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion set out to rescue him and defeat the Wicked Witch once and for all.

Comparison with source material
The series incorporated music and visual elements from the 1939 film version, including the Scarecrow's diploma and Dorothy's ruby slippers. At the same time, the character of Dorothy was designed with an appearance similar to that of Princess Ariel from Disney's The Little Mermaid and was not intended to resemble Judy Garland. In the film, it is largely implied that Oz was a head-trauma-induced delirium, instead of a real place, while in the TV series, it was a real land.

Principal voice actors

 * Liz Georges – Dorothy Gale
 * David Lodge – Scarecrow
 * Hal Rayle – Tin Man
 * Charlie Adler – Cowardly Lion
 * Frank Welker – Toto, Hyena (ep. 6)
 * Tress MacNeille – Wicked Witch of the West, Miranda (ep. 10)
 * B.J. Ward – Glinda
 * Alan Oppenheimer – Wizard of Oz

Additional voices

 * Jack Angel
 * Hamilton Camp
 * Pat Fraley – Truckle the Winged Monkey
 * Bibi Osterwald
 * Rob Paulsen
 * Ken Sansom
 * Susan Silo – Munchkin Mayor (ep. 1)

Crew

 * Susan Blu – Voice Director
 * Ginny McSwain – Casting Director

International and re-airings
After its run on ABC, the series reaired on Bohbot Entertainment's Amazin' Adventures block from 1992 until 1993, and on Toon Disney from the channel's launch in 1998 until 2002. The series also reaired on HBO.

In Canada, the series aired on YTV from 1990 to 1995.

United States
"The Marvelous Milkmaid of Mechanica" has never been released in the United States in any home video format. "The Lion that Squeaked" is available only on VHS.

title: The Wizard of Oz (TV series)


text:
Talk:Sequential game

"Gioco dinamico" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Gioco dinamico and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sequential game


text: User talk:130.215.112.60

title: User talk:130.215.112.60


text: Category:User perl-1

title: Category:User perl-1


text:
Talk:Shapley value

Characterized by properties 2, 3, and 5?
Isn't property number 1 also necessary? Otherwise, you could just divide the total value of the game evenly between all the players, and this function would clearly satisfy properties 2, 3, and 5.

Properties 2, 3 and 5 do NOT characterize the Shapley value
One property is missing: If a player is null, it receives zero. A player $$i$$ is null if $$v(S\cup \{i\}) = v(S)$$ for all $$S$$ not containg $$i$$. The Shapley value is the only value that satisfies this property, plus 2, 3, and 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.147.86.254 (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

 * You are right. Just take v(N) and divide it evenly among the players. This is another solution, different from the Shapley value, that satisfies 2, 3, and 5. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That might not be correct; the null player property can be derived from linearity. Aristotles (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Barzilai's letter
Barzilai's letter is short, not peer-reviewed, and not notable. Cretog8 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

 * What does length have any thing to do with relevance or accuracy? This is a valid criticism of the Shapley value.   It is accurate, peer-reviewed, and notable. Uvenkata (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 * not notable at all. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 * The immediate implication of Barzilai's Letter to the Editor, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, April 2008, is that the Shapley Value has no foundation. The claims that an argument that nullifies Shapley's Value is not notable or not relevant to Shapley's Value defy mathematical logic and common sense.Uvenkata (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

 * the Shapley value has no foundation?
 * do you have an idea of the references about Shapley value, including criticism that you can find since the book of Luce and Raiffa (1957, 51 years before Barzilai)? Maybe you could have a look at these references: the edited book by Roth (1988), and the chapers of the Handbook of Game Theory by: Hart, McLean, Mertens, Monderer and Samet, Neyman whose bibliographical details you may find here: . You may also have a look at the bibliography online by Hart:
 * do you have an idea about the debate which is going on (since its "birth") on the foundations of game theory? I liked so much the opinion of Ken Binmore (1997) that I quoted it in my GT book: the foundations of Game Theory are now in such a mess. Do you think that researchers in game theory had to wait for the letter by Barzilai for some criticism?
 * resuming. The page by Barzilai is so deep, so new, that it deserves a citation in the page? No. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Let's leave this out as WP:OR. If the insight is really important, then others will presumably pick it up and run with it, and we can cite them citing the letter.Cretog8 (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [edited Cretog8 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)]

 * But anyway I am negatively impressed by the fact that -all- of the visible contributions of this user are about Barzilai. The suggestion by Cretog8 seems to me a valuable one to decide about the relevance of such an insight. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC) [edited Cretog8 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)]

 * With regards to the observation that "Do you think that researchers in game theory had to wait for the letter by Barzilai for some criticism? ", I would like to comment that if the emperor has no clothes, he has no clothes, even if a two-year old makes that observation  If others have also made that observation, their observations could also be noted, so that the encyclopaedia presents all the facts, including criticisms of a particular theory.

The answer to the question "the Shapley value has no foundation?" posed by Fioravante Patrone en is in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society cited in the criticism section of the entry that he has repeatedly deleted. The Shapley value has no foundation because it depends on the characteristic function which is ill-defined. The characteristic/worth function in Equations (1)-(2) of the Formal Definition Section of this entry cannot be constructed without specifying whose values are being evaluated and the Shapley value cannot be defined without reference to this ill-defined function. Yet Fioravante Patrone en claims that the fact that the characteristic function cannot be constructed, which by the way he does not refute, is irrelevant to the Shapley Value entry. Could a single-reference be provided to a general procedure for the construction of the worth/characteristic function on which the Shapley value depends?

Game theory is part of Operations Research and is not the private domain of game theorists. As an OR teacher and researcher and a member of the Canadian Operational Research Society, I am aware of some of Barzilai's recent presentations such as a tutorial at the 2008 Annual Meeting of CORS, articles in the Bulletin of this society in 2007 and a Colloquium at Dalhousie University's Dept. of Mathematics. This information is publicly available and these results have not been refuted by Fioravante Patrone en or others.

It is against Wikipedia policy to attempt to discredit an editor by creating a vague impression of a conflict of interest. Uvenkata (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) [edited Cretog8 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)] Uvenkata (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * discredit? Vague impression? I quoted facts.
 * a technical comment. By chance, I am professor of operations research, in my "real life". Neverthless, game theory is not part of operaitons research. This is a very old fashioned point of view, not that of a child who sees a naked emperor
 * you want a reference? By chance I have a paper. There is no utility there (and if you look aruond, you will find more papers without "utility": see, for example, the use of Shapley value for reliability theory). The characteristic function of a game is not "obliged" to rely on utility functions. Small children have grown enough. An intriguing reading could be also: Roth, A. E. [1977], "The Shapley Value as a von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility," Econometrica 45, 657-664. I have found it much deeper than the one page letter that you consider so revolutionary. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 17:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * It appears I made a procedural mistake in some of my comments. I've removed that mistake and some follow-ups in comments by Fioravante Patrone en and Uvenkata which might address things in a way which they shouldn't be addressed. I hope this post-censoring is OK with you both, if not you may revert and we can see how to continue.Cretog8 (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

 * ''In the process of undoing what has been termed as a procedural mistake, a part that addressed a comment by Fioravante Patrone en was also removed. I have edited the discussion again as a result.Uvenkata (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental point here is that Shapley's Value (Equation (3)) depends on the characteristic/worth function v(S) in Equations (1)-(2). These equations characterize the ill-defined v(S) which cannot be constructed. Therefore the Shapley value has no basis and Hart's paper directly confirms this.

This is the point of the American Mathematical Society Notices Letter which Users Fioravante Patrone en and Cretog8 have had more than enough time to refute. They cannot provide a reference to the literature where the characteristic function v(S) is constructed rather than "assumed" because this function cannot be constructed.

Arbitrarily stating "no consensus" is not a valid objection to the fact that Shapley's Value is ill-defined. If Shapley's Value is sufficiently notable to merit an entry, then the fact that it is ill-defined is also notable. The claim that criticism of this concept should not appear in its own entry is, at best, illogical.

The claim that I am Barzilai is false. Likewise, the claim of conflict of interest is unfounded. This issue is at the foundation of OR and it is in my and the public's best interest that the record be set straight. In science, errors are corrected, not concealed. Uvenkata (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

 * sorry, you got already enough answers from my side, but apparently you are not interested in answers. Let me just add that science or the public interest will not be protected by the inclusion of Barzilai's letter here. Some modesty would be welcome. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Cretog8’s proclamations are meaningless and do not merit a response. Fioravante Patrone en defies elementary logic, contradicts himself, and ignores the facts. The points of view of both users are biased and designed to conceal from Wikipedia readers the unpleasant fact that there is no foundation for Shapley’s value. Barzilai’s Letter to the Editor, Notices of the American Mathematical Society, states that the characteristic function of a game and other game theory fundamental concepts are ill-defined. This is a very significant statement: It establishes that von Neumann and Morgenstern, Shapley, Luce & Raiffa, Hart, those game theorists quoted by Fioravante Patrone en, and  Fioravante Patrone en himself (among others) have committed fundamental mathematical errors. Fioravante Patrone en’s statements cover up these errors, and specifically, the immediate and obvious implication of Barzilai’s Letter with respect to the fact that Shapley’s value is ill-defined.

Here is the full text of Barzilai’s Letter: “The assignment of values to objects such as outcomes and coalitions, i.e. the construction of value functions, is a fundamental concept of game theory. Value (or utility, or preference) is not a physical property of the objects being valued, that is, value is a subjective (or psychological, or personal) property. Therefore, the definition of value requires specifying both what is being valued and whose values are being measured. Game theory’s characteristic function assigns values to coalitions so that what is being valued by this function is clear but von Neumann and Morgenstern do not specify whose values are being measured in the construction of this function. Since it is not possible to construct a value (or utility) scale of an unspecified person or a group of persons, game theory’s characteristic function is not well-defined. Likewise, all game theory solution concepts that do not specify whose values are being measured are ill-defined.” Barzilai’s Letter was published by the American Mathematical Society because it is new, correct, and very significant.

It cannot be refuted that Shapley’s value (Equation 3) is a game theory value, and it cannot be refuted that it relies on the ill-defined von Neumann and Morgenstern’s characteristic function (Equations 1-2). Fioravante Patrone en seems to believe that when errors are published they become facts but when errors are published, including game theory errors, they do not become facts -- they become published errors. The fact is that Shapley’s value has no basis and Fioravante Patrone en cannot provide a single reference to the literature where the characteristic function of a game is constructed rather than assumed. He should be advised that the 1977 paper by Roth which he quotes contains the same errors that appear throughout game theory, including a fundamental error on its second page. He should read that page carefully.

Barzilai’s Letter applies to all non-physical variables including variables that are labelled “value,” “utility,” or “preference.” The question whose values are being constructed applies to all such variables. Fioravante Patrone en’s reference to “papers without utility” is self-contradictory: Shapley himself refers to his “value” as an evaluation by the players of a game in their utility scales and this is precisely the point of Roth’s paper which Fioravante Patrone en cites (see the quote on the first page of Roth’s paper).

There is the matter of elementary scientific integrity. Since Fioravante Patrone en knows and acknowledges that the foundations of game theory are “in a mess” he should advise Wikipedia readers that this is the case rather than suppress the facts and conceal the truth from readers. The foundations of game theory are not “in a mess” -- they do not exist.Uvenkata (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 * please refrain from continuously insert your propaganda about Barzilai. You found no support on it up to now. Respect the existing opinions and wait for addinional ones, please. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I like Barzilai for his great contributions with Jon Borwein, etc., but any claim that von Neumann, Shapley, Aumann, Milnor, Dubey, Lucas, Owen, etc. were spouting nonsense doesn't need further discussion. Just keep deleting it.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 15:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

a non-technical explanation
I think the article would benefit from an intuitive explanation of the solution concept (while I'm at it, I think it'd be good to avoid the word "fair" in the lede in favor of "cooperative solution"); the fact that each member of the coalition receives share of total surplus equal to their "marginal product" or "marginal contribution", where this is based 'as if' all the members of the coalition arrived randomly. Casting the example in the article in these terms can make this concept more accessible to the lay readers.radek (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect v function definition
v does not necesarily need to be superadditive, see for instance Multiagent Systems —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.240.86 (talk) 01:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree Koczy (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions
Comments on terminology:

 * Maybe "coalition game" should say "coalition/cooperative game with transferable utility". The Shapley value, for superadditive TU games, is a special case of a solution concept for NTU cooperative games.

 * "Linearity" is more clear, and stronger, than "additivity" IMO.

Suggestions on what could be further included:

 * A sketch of the short proof of uniqueness, which uses linearity in an essential way, would be nice.

 * Cute and immediate example: a special case of Nash bargaining can be viewed as a TU cooperative game. Shapley value and the Nash solution agree in that case.

 * Comparison with the core: how about simple examples where the Shapley value lies and does not lie in the core? The Glove game already shows the latter case.

Mct mht (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 * I am going to go ahead and change "additivity" to linearity. Saying a value is additive is misleading. The term "additive" is alluding to the fact that a game is a measure-like object (in the finite case, imposing additivity makes the game a measure defined on the discrete sigma algebra). A value is a linear functional on this (Banach) space of measures. Mct mht (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dr. Dehez's comment on this article
Dr. Dehez has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"Only TU games are being considered. A section on the value of NTU games should be considered.

A bit poor on the characterization of the Shapley value. Marginalism needs to be better explained. It is linked to the monotonicity axiom introduced by Young (1985). It replaces the null player and linearity axioms. About linearity, only the additive part is actually needed.

The reference to the paper with Dehez-Tellone is one among many applications of the Shapley value, for instance bankcruptcy resolution, data and information sharing,...

I suggest to add the reference to the Handbook of Game Theory (Vol 3) and the chapters by Eyal Winter (53), Neyman (56) and Mertens (58)."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Dehez has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:

 * Reference : Pierre Dehez & Daniela Tellone, 2009. "Data Games : Sharing public goods with exclusion," Working Papers of BETA 2009-31, Bureau d'Economie Theorique et Appliquee, UDS, Strasbourg.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Beal's comment on this article
Dr. Beal has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"- In the paragraph "Properties", property 4 should not be called Zero player, since it refers to something else. Null player is the correct name. Furthermore, the characterizing result given just below can be stated as a theorem, and it can be mentioned that it is due to Shubik (1962, Management Science) - The paragraph Addendum definitions is rather strange: it states two extra properties, but they are not related to results. Furthermore, the sentence describing "Marginalism" is misleading since the Shapley value is not the unique solution which only rests on marginal contributions. I would definitely remove this paragraph. Instead, important results on the Shapley value should be added. I have in mind the appealing characterizations by Young (1985, International Journal of Game Theory), Myerson (1980, International Journal of Game Theory) and two others in Hart and Mas-Colell (1989, Econometrica). - The article lacks of references on the applications of the Shapley value to economics and operations research, but also to other sciences. Examples are the several articles published in 2008 in volume 16 of TOP, among others. According to me this is important for Wikipedia. - The extension presented in the last part of the article is only one among many extensions of the Shapley value. For instance, the extension by Myerson (1977, Mathematics of Operations Research) has initiated a substantial literature. I believe that it would make sense to list few other extensions.

Thus my overall apreciation is that the article is rather correctly written, but gives only a very partial glimpse of the important results about the Shapley value."

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Beal has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

 * Reference 1: Sylvain Beal & Andre Casajus & Frank Huettner, 2015. "Efficient extensions of the Myerson value," Working Papers 2015-01, CRESE.

 * Reference 2: Beal, Sylvain & Remila, Eric & Solal, Philippe, 2012. "Axioms of invariance for TU-games," MPRA Paper 41530, University Library of Munich, Germany.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Perez-Castrillo's comment on this article
Dr. Perez-Castrillo has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"N"

- !}}\sum _{R}\left[v(P_{i}^{R}\cup \left\{i\right\})-v(P_{i}^{R})\right]\,\!}

Where {\displaystyle R\,\!} R\,\! is an ordering of the players and {\displaystyle P_{i}^{R}\,\!} P_{i}^{R}\,\! is the set of players in {\displaystyle N\,\!} N\,\! which precede {\displaystyle i\,\!} i\,\! in the order {\displaystyle R\,\!} R\,\!"

 * undefined

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Perez-Castrillo has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

 * Reference 1: Effrosyni Diamantoudi & Ines Macho-Stadler & David Perez-Castrillo & Licun Xue, 2011. "Sharing the surplus in games with externalities within and across issues," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 880.11, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Analisi Economica (UAB) and Institut d'Analisi Economica (CSIC).

 * Reference 2: David Perez-Castrillo & David Wettstein, 2005. "Implementation of the Ordinal Shapley Value for a three-agent economy," UFAE and IAE Working Papers 647.05, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Analisi Economica (UAB) and Institut d'Analisi Economica (CSIC).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Generalisation to coalitions - reference appears not to match content
I am interested in the generalisation to coalitions stated in the last paragraph. However, the paper cited for this formula does not in fact appear to contain it. So I am stuck - where can I read more about that extension? Nathaniel Virgo (talk) 14:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 * I found myself in exactly the same situation now, and couldn't find the formula or something similar in the referenced paper either. It appears the edit was made by Romanpoet on 04:56, 31 May 2017 (if anyone is interested in this information). For the moment, until there is more information, I've marked his citation as irrelevant. And Nathaniel, about where to read more about the topic: I've found another paper which seems to cover this topic, but haven't read it yet. So this might or might not provide useful information. Ception (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Not in lede
This is based spin a “note” (not full article) in a perfectly respectable but not top journal. This is not the kind of information that belongs in the lede even if it *may be* pertinent somewhere else.  Volunteer Marek  00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Shapley value


text:
Talk:Schematic diagrams

This is a definition, not an encyclopedic article. Please post in wiktionary instead, or greatly expand. Thanks. --Jacqui M Schedler 01:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Schematic diagrams


text:
User:Adroit s

 * ~ R3cup3r@t!0n ~*

Few drops of water on my palm. Feels like the sea is calm.

Revolving,shaking,twisting when test. I get its worth, its best.

Reflecting, shining little crystal ball. Gosh! i will nevre let them fall.

Feeling like i have many powers. Talking to them i spent my hours.

Cherished moments of me and them. I find some lessons in them.

Wondering if i can hold them forever. Ah !dear its the wish of the devil.

If tis happens,they will lose the charm. It will never be the worth ,the calm.

Nature will find its way,its true. Then why should we bother, get blue.

Thinking that what i will get. Treasure,smiles,patience or regret.

Thinking, thinking,thinking for a while. Inclined my palm and let them slide.

Wot i thought i can never explain. But the thing i then only gain.

Few drops of water on my cheek. Giving a memory i can ever seek. 01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)~ Tis iz *MY-WRITTINGZ* sharing xperienced feelingz.If u wanna criticise / compliment ,u can via/\/\/\mail.

WISHING U BEST OF UR LUCK* THNX. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

title: User:Adroit s


text:
Talk:Signaling game

formal section corrected
I corrected the formal section on equilibrium which was badly done. (The dependence of the receiver's action on the sender's was not expressed, leading to a wrong formalisation.) Some minor edits too. The section is not as clear as it could be, but at least not wrong now. I added the possibility of mixed strategies (necessary for equilibrium sometimes), and take credit for the joke about mixed messages!

One point: I am not sure the message/action wording is the best: it seems to imply costless signalling (that different messages are equally costly). CSMR 03:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the formal section is still wrong for the following reasons:

 * Requirement 2 states that the receiver has to take action a^*(m) that maximises \sum_{t_i} \mu(t_i|m)U_R(t_i,m,a). But a^*(m) is defined as a probability distribution over the set of messages A (in my opinion this choice of notation is not felicitious). It does not make sense to say that a probability distribution maximises the above sum. It should at least be switched to the following: using the notation a^*(m)[a_j] standing for the probability for the receiver to play a_j given he has received message m<, For all m, probabilistic strategy a^*(m) for the receiver has to be a best response to m, i.e., has to maximises \sum_{t_i} \sum_{a_j} \mu(t_i|m) a^*(m)[a_j] U_R(t_j,m,a_i). Now this is feasible only if probabilistic strategy a^*(m) assignes non-zero probability to actions a that maximises \sum_{t_i} \mu(t_i|m)U_R(t_i,m,a) which is the formula has it appears now in the section. So I think there is a global confusion between a^*(m) seen has a probabilistic strategy on the one hand, and has a pure best response on the other hand, induced by the choice of notation.

 * Notation U_S (t, m,a^*(m)) is undefined in requirement 3. My guess is that it means \sum_{a_i} a^*(m)[a_i] U_S(t, m,a_i). But once again, if m^* stands for a probablistic strategy, then this does not make sense, and it should be said instead that each m in the support of m^*(t) has to maximise the previous sum.

 * Last and most important point I think; the Bayes formula exhibited in requirement 4 does not make sense at all. Assuming the undefined notation p(t_j) refers to the prior probability of the sender to be of type t_j, then \sum_{t_i} p(t_i) = 1 and  p(t)/\sum_{t_i} p(t_i) = p(t) which do not make sense for \mu(t|m). The priors should be revised coherently with the belief of the receiver towards the sender's strategy, which in equilibrium is assumed to be  m^*. Hence application of the Bayes formula should go as follows: For each message  m_i  if there is a  t_j such that  m^*(t_j)[m_i] ≠ 0  then  \mu(t_k|m_i) = p(t_k)m^*(t_k)[m_i]/\sum_{t_j} p(t_j)m^*(t_j)[m_i]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhcourtep (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the formal section on Perfect Bayesian equilibrium to be more general, but with, I hope, more consistent notation and accuracy. I first tried keeping the formality at the level of the previous version, but if that is done accurately, even with just two types, signals, and response actions, it becomes unduly cumbersome for likely readers. Even as is, I wonder whether readers would get a better idea by going straight to the example of a signalling game.
 * --editeur24 (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Where is Zahavi?
As far as I know, according to Dawkins, A. Zahavi was the first to propose the handicap principle in regards to Birds of Paradise and Thompson's Gazelles. Even if future biologists have expanded upon the theory, Zahavi deserves initial credit for the ideas. (q.v. handicap principle)

If nobody objects, I will update the article accordingly. — MSchmahl… 11:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, sure, go ahead. Though, in way of some defence of the present state, the article is about signalling games in a fairly strict game theory sense, and I don't think Zahavi's work (as undeniably influential as it is) is as "on point"  as Grafen's work.  Grafen's work applies game formal game theory, and a signalling game to the problem, along the lines suggested by Zahavi. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
Shouldn't we use either British English OR American English? Signalling vs. signaling etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.54.1 (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the WP convention is to consistently apply whichever spelling was discernably used first in the history of the article. Judging from the title, I'd guess that it is US spelling that should be used throughout this article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Diagram explanation
I'd love to see some explanation for the extensive form diagram, either in the caption or the main text, or both. What are X, Y, N and q? There are no S and R in the diagram, though we'd expect that from the main text. How do we read these diagrams? Sender says something, receiver reacts, from left to right... or something? Also, how do the various symbols and formalism in the main text relate to the diagram (actions, messages, types)? What are the horizontal lines, solid vs. dotted? I have been googling around trying to figure out how these diagrams work, to no avail. Someone help! Jyoshimi (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi Jyoshimi, after wondering the same, I updated the description on Commons with an explanation of the image. I think that should suffice in this case as the details of the graph are not important to the article. 31.187.2.43 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A belated thanks for this! Jyoshimi (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote the introduction--Dec. 7, 2020
I rewrote the introduction to add more qualitative features of signalling. I removed the notation, which isn't needed in an introduction. Also, signalling games are not restricted to two players, discrete types, no signal by the receiver, etc., so I rephrased the description as being an example of a simple signalling game. I fixed the spelling of Rubinstein and made other stylistic changes. --editeur24 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Why different second payoff summands for the sender if the receiver stays ?
In section Signaling game the payoff matrix entry is P1+P1 for the preying sane sender and D1+D1, both when the receiver stays. But it seems P1 and D1 only refer to the signal costs for the sender -which are a priori not related to the payoff summand depending on the receiver's action. Then why is there a particular M1 summand in case of monopoly -thus fixed regardless of the sender's signal- and not some fixed payoff, say C1, in case the receiver of competition -that is the receiver staying ? In other words the payoff for the sender should be the sum "signal cost [a negative number]"+"state payoff only depending on the receiver choice [positive]", which would imply P1=D1 -which is not reasonable.

I would therefore see (P1+C1, D2) in the upper left entry and (D1+C1, D2) in the middle left entry -modulo choices of notation. Please anyone correct me -i will also try to check literature for usual such game models later. Thank you. Plm203 (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Signaling game


text:
Talk:2005 Iraqi constitutional referendum

Table versions
Funny, I put up the first results table, then someone else puts up a nearly-identical one, and mine is the one that gets tossed away. Real good.

--153.2.246.33 19:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, and I see my map got bumped too. I rather liked my colour scheme, but admittedly the current map has the advantage of making it quite obvious which were Yes'es and which were No's; and it's also got a legend, which I hadn't bothered to include. So it's all part of Wikipedia's rich pagent. Onward and upward, Quartier Latin   1968  02:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Veto requirements
I was reading previously on Wikipedia that it would be rejected if two provinces voted "no". Hum....

 * No, three, and it had to be a supermajority.

Results table
Somebody who isn't supposed to be busy at work can maybe make these BBC data into a table (they're the basis for my map): Yes     No Irbil 	99.36 	0.64 yellow Dahuk 	99.13 	0.87 yellow Sulaimaniya 	98.96 	1.04 yellow Muthanna 	98.65 	1.35 yellow Maysan 	97.79 	2.21 yellow Dhiqar 	97.15 	2.85 yellow Qadisiya 	96.74 	3.32 yellow Kerbala 	96.58 	3.42 yellow Basra 	96.02 	3.98 yellow Najaf 	95.82 	4.18 yellow Wasit 	95.70 	4.3 yellow Babil 	94.56 	5.44 yellow Baghdad 	77.70 	22.3 gold Kirkuk 	62.91 	37.09 light orange Diyala 	51.27 	48.73 dark orange Nineveh 	44.92 	55.08* dark orange Salahuddin 	18.25 	81.75 scarlet Anbar 	3.04 	96.9 dark red (National total 	78.59 	21.41) — Quartier Latin   1968  17:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to find the turnout percentages of each invidual voting district?

I changed the labels on the chart to "Sunni Arab majority" rather than "overwhelmingly sunni arab." I felt that it was inconsistent with "Shi'ite majority" and has connotations that are negative (ie, that sunni arabs are "overwhelming" an area).Pageblank 23:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

First Hand Account
I'm not sure if it's something you'd want on this page, but I found this first-hand photo-essay account of the event: [link removed to reduce SEO]... I know some wikis don't like random people adding external links, so I thought I'd post it here first. 158.4.56.6 16:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If it fits, then don't worry about asking. They say you are supposed to be "bold" when adding content.  70.120.210.190 16:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not agree. The policy is different when it comes to external links. - Pernambuco 04:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


text:
File:HampshireCounty1880.gif

1880 Map of Hampshire County, West Virginia

title: File:HampshireCounty1880.gif


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaseidramon

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Rob Church Talk 12:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Kaseidramon
Kaseidramon is a completely fanmade Digimon, as the author of the article has admitted this. This is evidenced by any informed person. A real Digimon might have a image, and no 'looks like a Mega-level "insert Digimon here."' This article may be considered a hoax, and is not suitable since it is fictional, whereas Wikipedia is for broadcasting facts and information.66.189.165.27 01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Orignal work DV8 2XL 12:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination Cmadler 13:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with above. Amren (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Nandesuka 19:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as a recreation. The previous VfD is at Votes for deletion/Kaseidramon.   [  +t,  +c ,  +m  ] 22:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect page from recreation. --Apostrophe 22:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy and protect. the wub  "?/!"  10:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy as recreation of previously (validly) VfDed material. If the creator opposes the deletion they should take it to WP:VFU. - Mgm|(talk) 11:12, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
Echo, Utah

Echo is a census-designated place located in northwestern Summit County, Utah, United States. The population was 56 at the 2010 census.

Echo was founded in 1854. The community took its name from nearby Echo Canyon.

History
Echo originated as a stopover along the Mormon Trail. Later the town served as a junction between the First transcontinental railroad and a spur line to serve silver mines near Park City. Since the creation of U.S. Highways Echo has served as a highway junction, where the main road coming from Wyoming splits with one branch proceeding towards Salt Lake City, continuing towards San Francisco, California, and the other towards Ogden, continuing to Portland, Oregon. Originally the main highway was numbered U.S. Route 30S and the branch was U.S. Route 530; the modern freeway equivalents are numbered Interstate 80 and Interstate 84.

Echo was significant to the Union Pacific Railroad. The town served as a coaling and watering station for trains entering Echo Canyon. From Echo, helper locomotives were added, when needed, to push trains up the steep grade to Wahsatch. A large coaling tower and many other railroad infrastructures existed in and around the town. Echo saw the most action during World War II.

The introduction of diesel power, especially after the war, negated the need for the services previously required by steam. The coaling tower, most trackage, and structures were removed.

Echo had faded by the sixties, yet was still alive by the junction of two major highways. However, the arrival of the interstate relegated the town to a few quaint buildings; some homes, a motel, tavern, restaurant and bus station. Nearby, Echo Canyon is a magnificent spectacle with its high rock sides and colorful scenery. The canyon begins just east of Echo and ends outside of Wahsatch, Utah.

Demographics
As of the census of 2010, there were 56 people living in the CDP. There were 31 housing units. The ethnic makeup of the town was 96.4% White and 3.6% American Native and Alaska Native. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 19.6% of the population.

Education
It is in the North Summit School District.

Climate
Echo has a continental climate (Köppen Dfb) characterized by cold, snowy winters and hot summers with high diurnal temperature variation.

In popular culture
The psychological horror visual novels Echo, The Smoke Room, and Arches are loosely based on Echo and the surrounding area.

title: Echo, Utah


text:
User talk:Fluent aphasia

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Falphin 01:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

title: User talk:Fluent aphasia


text:
Frick and Frack

Frick and Frack were a comedic ice skating duo of Swiss skaters who went to the United States in 1937 and joined the original Ice Follies show. "Frick" was Werner Groebli (21 April 1915 – 14 April 2008), born in Basel. "Frack" was Hans Rudolf "Hansruedi" Mauch (2 May 1919 – 4 June 1979), also born in Basel. Frick and Frack were known for skating in Alpine Lederhosen and performing eccentric tricks on ice, including the "cantilever spread-eagle", created by Groebli; and Mauch's "rubber legs", twisting and bending his legs while skating in a spread eagle position. Only a few skaters have successfully performed the duo's routines since.

Michael Mauch, the son of Hans, described the origin of their names: "Frick took his name from a small village in Switzerland; Frack is a Swiss-German word for a frock coat, which my father used to wear in the early days of their skating act. They put the words together as a typical Swiss joke."

History
Frick and Frack found fame with the Ice Follies, a revue promoted by Eddie Shipstad and his brother Roy, which began in 1936 and ran for almost 50 years. They also reached a worldwide audience when they began appearing in films, including the Monogram Pictures production Lady, Let's Dance in 1944. Their association lasted so long, and they were at one time so well known, that their names became a household term in many languages.

Frick and Frack skated in the Ice Follies for many years until Hans Mauch (Frack) contracted osteomyelitis. He retired in 1953, and died on 4 June 1979 in Long Beach, California, at the age of 60. He had been married to Mary M. Elchlepp of Minneapolis, one of the original Ice Folliettes.

Performing well into his late years, Werner Groebli continued on as "Mr. Frick" until an accident forced him to retire in 1980. He appeared as a contestant on TV's original Match Game on NBC in the 1960s. Groebli lived in the Palm Springs, California, area for over 10 years until the death of his wife, the former Yvonne Baumgartner, in 2002. He was featured on a PBS TV special in 1999.

Groebli died on 14 April 2008 in Zürich at the age of 92. David Thomas, one of his skating partners after Mauch retired, announced his death from complications after breaking a leg at a nursing home outside of Zürich.

In popular culture
"Frick and Frack" has become an English slang term used to refer to two people so closely associated as to be indistinguishable. Comic radio mechanics Tom and Ray Magliozzi performed for years under the name Click and Clack.

title: Frick and Frack


text:
Massachusetts School Building Authority

The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) is a quasi-independent public authority that provides grants which partially fund municipal and regional school districts for kindergarten through high school construction and renovation projects in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The MSBA, upon the initiative of applicant municipal and regional school districts, partially funds school facility construction and develops financially sound plans for constructing educationally appropriate buildings that are long-lived, safe, and economically and environmentally sustainable. The source of MSBA revenue funds is one cent of the 6.25-percent sales tax of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The MSBA funds a portion of approved eligible building project costs; the proportion of funding depends primarily upon the school districts's economic health, and can vary from 31 to 80 percent of the cost of the new building or building rehabilitation project.

History
In 2004, the Massachusetts legislature placed a moratorium on state assistance to the funding of public school capital expenditure projects. A prior backlog of more than 800 audits and a failure of the legislature to properly fund the former School Building Assistance Program (SBA) had led to an accumulated a debt of more than $10 billion from the SBA's operations. The program was at that time administered by the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.

In July 2004, the legislature enacted the bill creating the MSBA, and on July 26, the then Governor, Mitt Romney, signed the bill into law as Chapter 208 of the Acts of 2004, establishing the new public authority, which assumed responsibility for the School Building Assistance Program, its debt obligations and other previous commitments.

The MSBA’s first years focused on an accelerated audit program that resolved prior School Building Assistance Program commitments to local school districts. By the end of 2006, debt and the backlog of audits had been reduced enough for the authority to lift the moratorium on funding new building projects, and in 2007, the MSBA accepted new capital projects for consideration.

On January 25, 2012, Massachusetts Treasurer and Receiver General Steven Grossman, Chair of the MSBA, announced the appointment of Jack McCarthy as Executive Director of the MSBA.

Operations
Since its establishment in 2004, the MSBA has made more than $10.1 billion in reimbursements to cities, towns and regional school districts for school construction projects. Instead of waiting years for reimbursement, districts now receive payments from the MSBA as costs are incurred. These timely payments have saved municipalities over $2.9 billion in avoided local interest costs. To fulfill its mission of developing fiscally responsible and educationally appropriate capital improvements, the MSBA has:
 * Made full or partial payments to more than 424 of the 428 projects on the waiting list, with funding available for the remaining projects once they begin construction
 * Received and processed over 180 Statements of Interest from communities interested in participating in the program
 * Instituted an accelerated audit program that has completed more than 772 of the 800 backlogged audits inherited from the former program
 * Audited over $14 billion in project costs
 * Made it possible for local municipal or regional school districts to avoided $2.9 billion in interest costs, by increasing speed which projects move through the capital funding process
 * Saved Massachusetts and its municipalities over $1.1 billion by establishing of reasonable enrollment projections; increased oversight of school improvement projects with reasonable project budgets the prevent growth in scope or budget; and exercises due diligence by making more than 450 site visits to more than 160 school districts

title: Massachusetts School Building Authority


text: Category:User perl-4

title: Category:User perl-4


text:
Talk:Stackelberg competition

term missing?
I just edited the equation for Pi_1, but on second thought it occurs to me that there may be a term missing. Shouldn't it be the total differential as follows?

 * $$\frac{d \Pi_1}{d q_1} = (\frac{\partial P(q_1+q_2)}{\partial q_1} + \frac{\partial P(q_1+q_2)}{\partial q_2}.\frac{\partial q_2(q_1)}{\partial q_1}).q_1 + P(q_1+q_2(q_1)) - \frac{\partial C_1 (q_1)}{\partial q_1}$$

Common Man 08:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Nash equilibrium?
Stackelberg's model has many Nash Equilibrium, isn't this describing subgame perfect equilibrium? Smmurphy 17:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
There is obvious vandalism in the first part of the page. A knowledgeable person should correct it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.232.128.10 (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Correct version of page
The link below seems to be the version of the page free of vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stackelberg_competition&oldid=118524910

 * I have just done a humongous revert to the material from december 2006. It seems everything since then has been vandalism (or changes from british to american spelling). nadav 06:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Jargon-free explanation
For those of us who aren't game theorists, it would be nice for the article to explain some terms that are used in the introduction. What does it mean for firms to
 * "compete on quantity"
 * "go first". Do what first?
 * "commit to a future non-Stackelberg follower action"
 * "have commitment power"

It seems that the second paragraph under "Nash equilibrium" is a much better introduction to what the game is actually about for those who don't already know. LachlanA 20:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Conditions for Equilibria
Setting the first derrivative of follower's payoff (conditional on leader's output) to zero does not guarantee a maximum -there could be many or no solutions. The function does not even have to be differentiable. Some conditions on the cost and price functions are necessary.

I suggest adding the following conditions (sufficient but not necessary):

1) Supposing that the functions p(q1,q1), c1(q1), and c2(q2) are differentiable. (For price function, at least want 1st partials, don't really need differentiability).

2) First partials of of p are non-positive 3) Derrivatives of cost functions are non-negative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.173.6.51 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Stackelberg compared with Cournot
The section "Stackelberg compared with Cournot" is not right, especially the claim "more information hurts". I was wondering why I can not find my previous editing. Jackzhp (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the worst summaries I've read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culturalextreme (talk • contribs) 15:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"Duopolio di Stakelberg" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Duopolio di Stakelberg and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 16 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stackelberg competition


text:
Talk:Stag hunt

suggest another diagram
"But occasionally players who defect against cooperators are punished for their defection. For instance, if the expected punishment is -2, then the imposition of this punishment turns the above prisoner's dilemma into the stag hunt given at the introduction."

It would be helpful to see the result of the -2 applied to the PD diagram - I can't quite understand the argument, but a diagram would really help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.225.0 (talk) 06:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

suggest merge
Because the stag hunt is just one version of a coordination game, I think this article could be merged with coordination game (User:Tabako 13:06, 31 August 2008 )

Wolf's Dilemma
Douglas Hofstadter's "Wolf's Dilemma" is essentially the same problem, but with many players(usually around 30) instead of just two. Any thoughts on whether this should be mentioned on this page? I'm inclined to add some lines about it, but I'm not sure the what the consensus on noteworthiness would be. --68.102.156.139 22:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

 * This is just another name for the same thing, if you're describing it correctly. Rousseau's original example was not supposed to be a 2-player interaction (the idea is that you need to have a bunch of guys surrounding a stag so that whichever way it runs its surrounded!) 128.135.98.189 (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Payoff
"The stag hunt differs from the Prisoner's Dilemma in that the greatest potential payoff is both players cooperating, whereas in the prisoners Dilemma, the greatest payoff is in one player cooperating, and the other defecting." This statement is poorly worded. In the PD, each prisoner can only control his/her own choice. Therefore, the greatest payoff comes from defecting, no matter what the other prisoner chooses. This payoff is only maximized if the other prisoner cooperates, but it's still better than your alternative choice. Applejuicefool (talk) 17:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC) kblkl/kb/nknknn,mknlkb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.136.154.116 (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

 * The statement that starts this comment is incorrect. Firstly, total payoffs are not relevant since there is no interpersonal comparability of utility. Second, even if you were to drop that assumption total payoffs could be higher or lower with both players cooperating than with one cooperating and the other defecting. 88.107.226.24 (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, the diagram shows 2,8 and 8,2 for the payoffs in which one hunts the stag and another defects and hunts a hare... shouldn't those be 1,0 and 0,1 - since the hare is worth 1 and hunting the stag and failing is worth 0? Also, if both hunt hares shouldn't the bottom right strategy payoffs be 1,1? Just a thought - but maybe I misunderstand.2601:18F:700:3E7:F962:91D9:54D3:C37C (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Solnza

Hume
It's not clear to me that Hume's examples fit here, even if they can plausibly be modeled to fit Nash's definition. Rousseau's point, and the point that the Stag Hunt is normally used to make, is that under certain sort satisficing or risk-averse evaluations the rabbit may seem preferable (because the rabbit meets your dietary needs just as well as a share of the stag). Hume's point, though, is that it is never reasonable to, e.g., not row, because none of you will go anywhere. Unless someone objects I'm removing the discussion of Hume. 128.135.98.189 (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

"... no longer risk dominant." Really?
Could someone please confirm this (or tell me where I went wrong)?

The article mentions an example of a stag hunt that is not formally one, but that many people would call one nonetheless.

"Often, games with a similar structure but without a risk dominant Nash equilibrium are called stag hunts. For instance if a=2, b=1, c=0, and d=1. While (Hare, Hare) remains a Nash equilibrium, it is no longer risk dominant. Nonetheless many would call this game a stag hunt."

It think that's not correct. For values: a=2, b=1, c=0, and d=1, (Hare, Hare) /is/ in fact still risk dominant, no?

[EDIT]

Never mind. I mixed up risk dominance and maximin. My mistake.

-- Minvogt (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

How many hares?
The initial text suggests that both participants can go hare hunting, scoring one point each. But the more descriptive version at the end of the article suggests that there is only one hare; if one hunter goes for it, the others starve. Which is correct? Stevage 00:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer: (edited/corrected from my previous deleted answer) Skyrms' Stag Hunt book, p.3: "Suppose that hunting hare has an expected payoff of 3, no matter what the other does. (...)". There are enough hares for anyone who wants to hunt them. You may have misunderstood the following point: the other gets 0 if decides to the stag while the other dont (ie. whatever the number of hares available).

Symmetric generic stag hunt?
The matrix labelled "Generic Stag Hunt" is just a generic payoff matrix, but the note that "a>b≥d>c" implies that the generic form should be symmetric. This is not my field -- is the generic Stag Hunt symmetric? Meanwhile, since the matrix listed is completely generic, I'm going to replace it with a symmetric one to match the inequality listed and call it "Generic symmetric Stag Hunt." SamuelRiv (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I also got stuck on "No longer risk dominant"
Since risk dominance is defined in weak form here, we could see that for the symmetric example with 'a=2, b=1, c=0, and d=1'. For (H,H) dominating (S,S) we need: (b-a)² ≥ (c-d)², so as 1 ≥ 1, we should still say that (H,H) risk dominates (S,S) and the part "it is no longer risk dominant" is not valid.

Unless that we use the strict definition for Risk dominance: (b-a)² > (c-d)². Note that example in figure 2 (H,H) is also not risk dominant by the strict definition.

The formal definition section helped me a lot because I was looking for some details of this game, but I understand that it is too technical.

Victor Maia (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's your reasoning. What I need is a reliable source. And yes, that was too technical, to the point it reads like meaningless jargon. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I should say that I know a little about this subject and the formal definition is essentially correct, my point above is only to show that "risk dominant" depends of using '>' or '≥', both uses are admissible. In plain language, the Stag Hunt Game is characterized as a game with two Nash Equilibria: One that is better for every player (Pareto_efficiency), each player betters off and that point is the (Stag,Stag) equilibrium. The other equilibrium is less risky, everyone is risking less, so the risk_dominance definition, and that equilibrium point is the (Hare,Hare). I will search for better references for this section, some of them are in the Wikipedia link (risk_dominance) already used and other good one is the Skyrms' book (already used in the current article).Victor Maia (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stag hunt


text:
Cove Fort

Cove Fort is a fort, unincorporated community, and historical site located in Millard County, Utah. It was founded in 1867 by Ira Hinckley (the paternal grandfather of Gordon B. Hinckley) at the request of Brigham Young. One of its distinctive features is the use of volcanic rock in the construction of the walls, rather than the wood used in many mid-19th-century western forts. This difference in construction is the reason it is one of very few forts of this period still surviving.

Cove Fort is the closest named place to the western terminus of Interstate 70, resulting in Cove Fort being listed as a control city on freeway signs, though the fort itself is historical and has no permanent population.

History
The site for Cove Fort was selected by Brigham Young because of its location about halfway between Fillmore (formerly the capital of the Utah Territory) and the nearest city, Beaver. It provided a way station for people traveling the Mormon Road. A town would have been constructed at the Cove Fort site, but the water supply was inadequate to support a sizable population. Another key factor in the selection of the site was the prior existence of a wooden-palisade fort, Willden Fort, which provided shelter and safety for the work crews who constructed Cove Fort.

The fort is a square, 100 ft on each side. The walls are constructed of black volcanic rock and dark limestone, both quarried from the nearby mountains. The walls are 18 ft high and 4 ft thick at the base, tapering to 2 ft thick at the top. The fort has two sets of large wooden doors at the east and west ends, originally filled with sand to stop arrows and bullets, and contains 12 interior rooms (six on the north wall and six on the south wall.)

As a daily stop for two stagecoach lines, as well as many other travelers, Cove Fort was heavily used for many years, often housing and feeding up to 75 people at a time. In addition to providing a place to rest, a blacksmith/farrier resided at the fort, who shod horses and oxen, and also repaired wagon wheels. With its telegraph office and as a Pony Express stop, it also acted as a regional communications hub.

Restoration
In the early 1890s, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints determined the fort was no longer required and leased it out, selling it to W.H. Kesler after the turn of the 20th century. In 1988, the Hinckley family purchased the fort and donated it back to the Church. The Church restored the fort, transported Ira Hinckley's Coalville, Utah, cabin to the site, constructed a visitor center, and reopened the fort as a historic site. The site provides free guided tours daily, starting from about 8 am until one half-hour before sunset.

Transportation
The first highway to traverse Cove Fort was the Arrowhead Trail, which connected Salt Lake City with Los Angeles. When the U.S. Highway system was formed, this route became U.S. Route 91, and is today Interstate 15. When the Interstate Highway System was in the planning stages, planners noted no direct connection existed between the central United States and southern California. The result to fill this gap was a new freeway that would be built west from Green River, Utah, towards Cove Fort, along a path that used to be inaccessible by paved roads. Since that time, Cove Fort has also served as the western terminus of Interstate 70. In 2004, the Federal Highway Administration was testing a new typeface, Clearview, designed to have improved readability at night with headlight illumination. One test sign was placed at Baltimore, Maryland – the eastern terminus of Interstate 70 – that listed Cove Fort as a control city with a distance of 2200 mi. One employee stated with the number of queries the department received about Cove Fort, the test was a success. The sign became so popular that after the test was over, federal authorities made arrangements with Maryland authorities to keep the sign permanently installed. The sign prompted a series of stories about Cove Fort to be published in the Baltimore area. Since that time, a small effort has been made by people in both states to lobby the Utah Department of Transportation to reciprocate by placing a sign at Cove Fort listing the distance to Baltimore.

title: Cove Fort


text:
Sarreguemines

Sarreguemines (German: Saargemünd, Lorraine Franconian: Saargemìnn) is a commune in the Moselle department of the Grand Est administrative region in north-eastern France.

It is the seat of an arrondissement and a canton. As of 2020, the town's population was 20,555. The inhabitants of the commune are known as Sarregueminois and Sarregueminoises in French.

Geography
Sarreguemines, whose name is a French spelling of the name in local Lorraine-German dialect "Saargemin", meaning "confluence into the Saar", is located at the confluence of the Blies and the Saar, 79 km east of Metz, 107 km northwest of Strasbourg by rail, and at the junction of the lines to Trier and Sarrebourg. Sarreguemines station has rail connections to Strasbourg, Saarbrücken and Metz. Traditionally Sarreguemines was the head of river navigation on the Saar, its importance being a depot where boats were unloaded.

Administration
Sarreguemines was, from 1985 to 2015, the seat of two cantons:
 * Sarreguemines, consisting of the Sarreguemines commune only.
 * Sarreguemines-Campagne, comprising 21 nearby communes.

Both cantons, minus the communes of Grundviller, Guebenhouse, Loupershouse and Woustviller that were added to the canton of Sarralbe, were merged into one canton of Sarreguemines on 1 January 2015.

History
Sarreguemines, originally a Roman settlement, obtained civic rights early in the 13th century. In 1297 it was ceded by the count of Saarbrücken to the Duke of Lorraine, and passed with Lorraine in 1766 to France. French Influence: The fortunes of Sarreguemines took another turn in 1766 when it passed from Lorraine to France. This period saw the town further develop its industries, including the production of plush velvet, leather, faience, porcelain, and papier-mâché boxes, primarily utilized for snuffboxes. Sarreguemines became renowned for its artisanal craftsmanship and artistic traditions.

It was transferred to Germany in 1871, with the Treaty of Frankfurt following the Franco-Prussian War. From 1871 to 1918 it formed part of the German imperial province of Alsace-Lorraine and manufactured plush velvet, leather, faience and porcelain, and was a centre for making papier-mâché boxes, mostly used for snuffboxes. It was returned to France after World War I.

On 21–23 December 1944 the 44th Infantry Division (United States) threw back three attempts by the Germans to cross the Blies River. An aggressive defense of the Sarreguemines area was continued throughout February and most of March 1945.

Notable people
Sarreguemines was the birthplace of :
 * Jean-Pierre Bachasson, comte de Montalivet (1766–1823), Peer of France and a French statesman
 * Auguste Hilarion Touret (1797 – 1858) - French philhellene officer and a participant in the War of Independence of Greece
 * Maximilian von Jaunez (1873–1947), industrialist and politician
 * Hans Traut (1895-1974), general
 * Marianne Oswald (1901-1985), singer
 * Karl Ullrich (1910-1996), Knight's Cross holder
 * Eugen-Ludwig Zweigart (1914-1944), pilot
 * Céleste Lett (born 1951), politician
 * Michel Roth (born 1959), chef
 * Eric Hassli (born 1981), French footballer
 * Lucien Schmitthäusler (1935–2020), writer and educator
 * Matthieu Sprick (born 1981), French cyclist
 * Erza Muqoli (born 2005), French singer

title: Sarreguemines


text:
Dumbarton Express

Dumbarton Express is a regional public transit service in the San Francisco Bay Area connecting Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties via the Dumbarton Bridge, the system's namesake. The bus service is funded by a consortium of five transit agencies (AC Transit, BART, SamTrans, Union City Transit, and VTA). Dumbarton Express is administered by AC Transit and operated under contract by MV Transportation.

Service
Dumbarton Express operates two weekday-only routes:
 * Route DB operates between Union City station and the Stanford University campus via Palo Alto station
 * Route DB1 operates between Union City station and the Stanford Research Park

Dumbarton Express allows passengers to ride locally in the East Bay and Peninsula, without crossing the bridge.

History
AC Transit began operating peak-hour service between Union City station and Palo Alto station on September 10, 1984. The yearlong trial service was funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The DB1 route serving the Stanford Industrial Park was added within a year. By 1987, route DB was also extended to the industrial park via a different route. A private company took over operations in January 1989, with AC Transit continuing to administer the service.

In 1993, five transit agencies (AC Transit, BART, SamTrans, Union City Transit, and VTA) formed a consortium to fund the service. A third route, DB2, was introduced in October 1998. It operated between Union City station and the East Palo Alto area. The route saw low ridership and was discontinued on June 30, 2001. AC Transit again became the service operator in March 2005.

AC Transit introduced a separate Dumbarton Bridge transbay service, route U, on August 29, 2004. Not part of the Dumbarton Express brand, it serves Fremont station rather than Union City station. On December 23, 2007, AC Transit extended its route M over the Dumbarton Bridge to Union City station, replacing route MA (which operated via the San Mateo Bridge). The route M extension was discontinued on March 28, 2010. It was replaced with AC Transit route DA between Ardenwood and Redwood Shores, which operated until December 15, 2013.

By 2009, some reverse-peak trips (eastbound in the morning and westbound in the afternoon) were routed via East Palo Alto and designated DB3. On December 19, 2011, route DB3 was discontinued, and MV Transportation replaced AC Transit as the operator of Dumbarton Express service. At that time, the service cost $2.1 million annually to operate, of which fare revenues covered $0.5 million. Service was increased by 80% on July 2, 2012, with service on route DB1 tripled. Route DB was rerouted to terminate at The Oval on the Stanford University campus, while route DB1 was extended to cover part of the former DB route in the Stanford Research Park.

On August 2, 2017, SamTrans released a study that examined the feasibility of adding additional bus routes to the service. The study recommended two new bus routes: an express route traveling between Union City station and Redwood City Caltrain station, and a local route between the Union City BART station to job centers in northern Mountain View and Sunnyvale. The introduction of the two routes was expected to more than double Dumbarton Express ridership. Rail service between Redwood City and Union City on the Dumbarton Rail Corridor is also proposed.

title: Dumbarton Express