Game Theory and Latin
on mathematical theorems and a dead language
For one or two years in primary school, we were encouraged to learn Latin. Each week, we would be given a new set of words or phrases to learn and the teacher would quiz us, sometimes even individually.
This dropped off during high school in favour of other languages until when I reached my mid teens when I used to read a dictionary called the Wordsworth Dictionary of Phrase and Fables. Reading this was like reading a novel or going through a book of art. The words or phrases would conjure my imagination — au courant, the multiple meaning of bête noire, legends like Godiva and I was in awe as to how a dead language could hold a lot of power in its words like ad hominem.
I remember looking up websites to obtain a list of similar Latin phrases of such logical fallacies. The reason why was because during this time, I was taking part in debating competitions. I would opt to be the final speaker — this involved summarising the arguments but the main focus is releasing the final blow in the opposition’s viewpoints. I used the Latin phrases as a guide for detecting the logical fallacy in the opposition’s argument and I would arrive at these competitions with my list of Latin phrases in hand ready to be used.
Fast forward to my college years. Mistakenly thinking that it was all about about game development and gamification, I bought a book on game theory only to see that it was not what I expected. However, it was a very pleasant surprise and a great, accessible introduction to game theory and ever since then, I would indulge myself in texts, notes or articles about it (see Related readings). In the same way that the Latin phrases would reveal a complex fallacy, the game theorems would reveal the strategy behind decisions that myself and other people make.
On life
I went through a rough patch about a year ago and decided to read Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour to try and understand some behavioural motives and this section in particular was relevant to me (I made a note of it back then):
One must remember that the T1, T2 represent strategies in the extensive form of the game, which may be of a very complicated structure….
In order to understand the meaning of strict determinateness, it is therefore necessary to investigate it in relation to the extensive form of the game. This brings up questions concerning the detailed nature of the moves — chance or personal — the state of information of the players, etc; i.e. we come to the structural analysis based on the extensive form, as mentioned in 12.1.1.
We are particularly interested in those games in which each player who makes a personal move is perfectly informed about the outcome of the choices of all anterior moves. These games were already mentioned in 6.4.1 and it was stated there that they are generally considered to be of a particular rational character. We shall now establish this in a precise sense, by proving that all such games are strictly determined. And this will be true not only when all moves are personal, but also when chance moves are present.
This was a particularly rough patch, where I was trying to find rationality in the irrational, the logical fallacy to life’s behaviours.
Related readings:
Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour (the origin)
Logical fallacies and the art of debate
Game theory and the Law (University of Chicago Law School)
