[lbo-talk] Game Theory question

[// ravi]

On Sep 27, 2011, at 11:45 PM, Eubulides wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 2:18 PM, Julio Huato wrote:
> 
>  In principle, we could do the
>> same computations we do with electronic computers using lines on sand
>> or with sticks or stones.  Well, provided space, time, the mechanics
>> of doing so many computations weren't constraints.  Math is language
>> (which is to say, a lot of congealed human labor) but incredibly
>> economized.  So, math is power.  The more math we talk (to ourselves
>> and with others), the more streamlined in form and enriched in content
>> of people's communication become.   If it were up to me to design the
>> curriculum of kindergartens and elementary schools, game theory and
>> other abstract math tools would be built in from the get-go.
> 

While I respect you (Julio) greatly (and love mathematics), I would never send my children to these kindergarten and elementary school of your creation/dreams. Abstract math and game theory are not the first things children should be learning, IMHO. More, IMHO, stuff like game theory might have some (or great) utility, but are the ugliest parts of mathematics.

Streamlined in form, perhaps, but enriched in content? I disagree.

Better the children spend their time on real games (*). More games. Less theory.

	—ravi

(*) Or at least, if mathematics, then geometry.