Thread by @gro_tsen

I've complained about this a number of times but not, I think, on Twitter: I am very much annoyed by the way many people call “game theory” a field which only includes stuff like normal form games, Nash/correlated equilibria, stochastic games, and the like, … •1/5

https://twitter.com/gro_tsen/status/1359542073934946305

… but NOT combinatorial game theory (the Sprague-Grundy theory of games like nim, nor the Conway theory of partizan games), nor Gale-Stewart games and their determinacy, nor Ehrenfeucht-Fraïssé games, nor differential game theory, etc. •2/5

E.g., this online course, game-theory-class.org/game-theory-I.…‌, which calls itself “Game Theory”, no qualifiers added, doesn't mention any of the things listed in the previous tweet. So I guess the authors think they're not part of “game theory”? But then what are they? •3/5

In essence, these “game theory” people have monopolized the term “game theory” for a small subset of the field! This is terribly bad terminology, because now there is no unambiguous term to denote this subset OR the entire field. •4/5

So, in wanting to teach a course on the wider field, I am forced to call it “game theories”, plural. And within that course, I am still trying to find a good term for the small subset which some people call “game theory”. More discussion here: mathoverflow.net/q/233221/17064 •5/5