PDA

View Full Version : Need help in diagnosing what(Math area) do i lack for self studying Micro



newdawn
02-14-2015, 07:26 PM
Hi everyone,
I have been struggling with self study micro from MWG. I tried to study Rudin Chapter 1-5 and optimization from Simon and Blume and Mathematical Statistics from Larsen & Marx. I started reading Chapter 1 of MWG and felt comfortable; probably because i took a course in Social Choice in a different department. Then started studying Chapter 6 with the hope of covering Game Theory Part of the book, Chapter 13,14,21 and 23. However in chapter 6 I struggled too much in conceptually understanding the proof as soon as utility function is defined in section 6.c over continuous space; i started struggling in following the logic smoothly. I also feel I will be facing those sort of integrals over distribution probably in alot of chapters so i should better prepare myself well.

Assuming that my ultimate goal is to study above mentioned part in MWG and i do not wish to take on Lebesgue Integral course, I would like to ask which area of Mathematical Preparation am i Lacking in? Is there any math for economics book that is ideal for self studying about that part?

Regards

Food4Thought
02-15-2015, 01:44 AM
What is the particular confusion about the proofs in section 6c that are confusing you? That section really just pushes the definitions of expected utility in the context of risk preferences over amounts of wealth.

newdawn
02-15-2015, 02:10 AM
What is the particular confusion about the proofs in section 6c that are confusing you? That section really just pushes the definitions of expected utility in the context of risk preferences over amounts of wealth.

Thanks for your reply
I think i am uncomfortable with thinking of lotteries in terms of integration sign for utility over cdf,
am sorry if this is a stupid question
but i do not know how to think what to think :(

Econhead
02-15-2015, 02:31 AM
Thanks for your reply
I think i am uncomfortable with thinking of lotteries in terms of integration sign for utility over cdf,
am sorry if this is a stupid question
but i do not know how to think what to think :(

Intuition is not straightforward for everyone-and there is a difference between Economic intuition, mathematical intuition, etc.

Have you you gone through a game theory course before? There are sort of two types of game theory courses: those that focus heavily on intuition, and those that focus heavily on the (math) proof side. (And, of course, those that try to do both.) if you have had a course before, which hve you had? From my own personal intellectual understanding, I think critically understanding the games and developing that intuition is a priori important to thinking about the math (proof) side.

Food4Thought
02-15-2015, 05:09 AM
Intuition is not straightforward for everyone-and there is a difference between Economic intuition, mathematical intuition, etc.

Have you you gone through a game theory course before? There are sort of two types of game theory courses: those that focus heavily on intuition, and those that focus heavily on the (math) proof side. (And, of course, those that try to do both.) if you have had a course before, which hve you had? From my own personal intellectual understanding, I think critically understanding the games and developing that intuition is a priori important to thinking about the math (proof) side.

Well, it seems like his problem is stemming from a lack of understanding the calculus behind expected utility. For that, he may just need to crack open an introductory book on probability theory.

But if it is the intuition which is the problem, he could try looking at Chapter 2 Section 3 of Jehle & Reny's Advanced Micro Theory.

fantinity
02-15-2015, 09:16 AM
It's a very bad idea to study game theory from MWG (I thought it was kind of common knowledge)? I recommend Osborne, Fudenberg & Tirole, or hardcore Myerson.

Kaysa
02-15-2015, 02:06 PM
Here is a little secret. Few people learn anything from MWG, or most other graduate textbooks for that matter, because they are poorly written pieces of junk.

Econhead
02-15-2015, 04:46 PM
It's a very bad idea to study game theory from MWG (I thought it was kind of common knowledge)? I recommend Osborne, Fudenberg & Tirole, or hardcore Myerson.

Agreed-MWG is terrible for learning/studying game theory.

I've said it before, but for a straightforward introduction that allows you to not get so bogged down in the proof-side of game theory, I recommend Binmore's 'Playing for Real.' It's also extremely inclusive at 800ish pages (if I remember correctly). I've gone through F&T for a class, and in my opinion it is much too math heavy to be used as a text for anything intuition based. However, it has some material that is rarely covered in most other game theory texts.

chateauheart
02-18-2015, 04:56 PM
I'd say the game theory and information theory parts of the book are written by the least pedagogically sensitive of the three authors.