Just curious, has anyone explored any connections between the Oriental game “Go” and PCT, or between PCT and game theory in general?

Andrew Nichols

Just curious, has anyone explored any connections between the Oriental game “Go” and PCT, or between PCT and game theory in general?

Andrew Nichols

Dear Andrew,

I am glad you ask the question. Control theory and game theory share a very deep bond. You can view optimal control theory as a special case of dynamic games. The research group that I am with at University of Illinois has a long history of looking at control and game theory. I am sure it would be interesting to apply to PCT.

You might find the following reference interesting:

T. Başar and G. J. Olsder. Dynamic Noncooperative Game Theory. SIAM Series in Classics in Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, January 1999

Quanyan Zhu

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Andrew Nichols anicholslcsw@gmail.com wrote:

Just curious, has anyone explored any connections between the Oriental game “Go” and PCT, or between PCT and game theory in general?

Andrew Nichols

–

Quanyan ZHU, B.ENG (McGill), M.A.Sc. (Toronto)

PhD Candidate

Coordinated Science Laboratory

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/zhu31/www/

[From Bruce Abbott (2010.11.24.2050 EST)]

Andrew Nichols (2010.11.17)

I just encountered the following and remembered your query:

The relationship between a acting object and a goal is not necessarily one-way. Thus, if hounds pursue a mechanical purposeless hare the behavior of the hounds is purposeful, with the hare as a goal, and the relationship is one-way. But if the hounds pursue a live hare or a mechanical hare that tries to avoid the hounds, the relationship is two-way, with purposeful activity all around. It may be mentioned parenthetically that the theory of games is a chapter in the study of two- or more-way purposeful activity (see 5).

(from Rosenblueth, A., & Wiener, N. (1950). Purposeful and nonpurposeful behavior. *Philosophy of Science, 17(4),* 381-326.)

Reference 5 in that article is Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). *Theory of games and economic behavior*. Princeton.

As you can see, the connection between control theory and game theory goes all the way back to the beginnings of cybernetics.

Bruce A.

AN: Just curious, has anyone explored any connections between the Oriental game “Go” and PCT, or between PCT and game theory in general?

Great reference!

Andrew

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Bruce Abbott bbabbott@frontier.com wrote:

[From Bruce Abbott (2010.11.24.2050 EST)]

Andrew Nichols (2010.11.17)

AN: Just curious, has anyone explored any connections between the Oriental game “Go” and PCT, or between PCT and game theory in general?

I just encountered the following and remembered your query:

The relationship between a acting object and a goal is not necessarily one-way. Thus, if hounds pursue a mechanical purposeless hare the behavior of the hounds is purposeful, with the hare as a goal, and the relationship is one-way. But if the hounds pursue a live hare or a mechanical hare that tries to avoid the hounds, the relationship is two-way, with purposeful activity all around. It may be mentioned parenthetically that the theory of games is a chapter in the study of two- or more-way purposeful activity (see 5).

(from Rosenblueth, A., & Wiener, N. (1950). Purposeful and nonpurposeful behavior.

Philosophy of Science, 17(4),381-326.)

Reference 5 in that article is Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944).

Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton.

As you can see, the connection between control theory and game theory goes all the way back to the beginnings of cybernetics.

Bruce A.