User talk:Halcyonhazard

Welcome!

Hello, Halcyonhazard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Melchoir 13:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and an invitation[edit]

Hello Halcyon and welcome to wikipedia. Thank you for your edits to Nash equilibrium, I'm glad you filled in that gap. If you're interested in game theory, you might think about joining us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory. This is a WikiProject where we try to coordinate our efforts on game theory pages. We have a collaboration of the month, and lists of chores that need done. Feel free to add yourself to the list of participants (if you like) and work on any of the open tasks or add any more to the list that you think need to be done. Thanks again. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 07:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

French Auction / Walrasian auction[edit]

I've let that merge discussion drop, too distracted to do the research needed to form a strong opinion. So, I still discourage the merge but that's mostly a status quo bias on my part. If you feel strongly about it, I won't argue.Cretog8 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel too strongly about it, but from my vantage/background of mechanism design from a computer science perspective, the Walrasian auction just seems like a generalization of the French auction, and that the French auction is just a specific implementation of a Walrasian auction. I guess one question is whether or not there will be enough different content to support two separate articles. If the Walrasian auction article were mature (good length, lots of citations, etc.), would the French auction article have much else to say, or would it just say that it's a Walrasian auction with these parameters, or would it duplicate the explanation of Walrasian auction? My bias is that I tend to prefer fewer articles with more content than smaller stubs of a very specific nature. However, I'd feel it were justified kept separate if Wikipedia had better organization in the mechanism design topic and had a consistent template for well-known mechanisms. Maybe we should wait until either Palaparthivr or Max7437 flesh out more of the French auction article, and decide then?

Mechanism design and Robotics[edit]

Hi, Halcyconhazard. The paper you citied seem to be interesting. I will do more research on the topic. How did you know about this? I mean, I've some background in Mechanism design, but I had no idea that it has some applications in robotics. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Masterpiece2000. I was actually doing my PhD on using market methods (e.g. tâtonnement, combinatorial auctions, multiple separate markets) for large-scale combinatorial optimization and routing in warehouse robotics. I was almost ready to propose on the topic before my former advisor left academia to start a (now successful) company doing exactly that. My new work is in automated procurement (the AI behind automating buyers and sellers). If you found that paper interesting, you might want to check out the links to the other people I cited on that page. Another paper I would recommend is here: [1]... several people have advanced the knowledge in the couple years since that paper (I know Sven has), but these were the first boundedly optimal results in using auctions for path planning. Halcyonhazard (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I was very surprised to find that mechanism design theory has applications in robotics. I will expand the article mechanism design in future and the links you provided will be useful. You are invited to make contributions to the article mechanism design. You are an intelligent guy and your contributions will be helpful.

Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the complement. I'm usually busy with my own research, projects, and publications, but every now and then sporadically contribute to Wikipedia when I need a change of pace (or come across something incorrect). I wish there were more hours in a day/lifetime. Halcyonhazard (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster averted[edit]

Thanks for the explanation here. I was starting to worry that your account had been taken over by hooligan's endorsing a <cough> "Fonzi" scheme....Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 23:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]