Talk:Succinct game

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Game theory Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in \| Fix a red link \| Add content \| Weigh inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Shouldn't the representation of anonymous games have size $O(sn{\tbinom {n+s-2}{s-1}})$ ? For each player, there are $(n-1)$ other players to distribute over the $s$ actions; Thus we have $O(sn{\tbinom {(n-1)+s-1}{s-1}})=O(sn{\tbinom {n+s-2}{s-1}})$ outcomes. 129.187.211.170 (talk) 19:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been changed and is supported by Algorithmic Game Theory on top of that. HypesII (talk)

I question the validity of the complexity results for circuit games (which are also sometimes called boolean games - Harrenstein et al. 2001). I've already changed the complexity of finding a pure strategy Nash equilibrium from NP-complete to $\Sigma _{2}^{\rm {P}}$ -complete which is supported both by the source incorrectly cited for NP-completeness and Dunne and van der Hoek 2004 concerning boolean games. HypesII (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]