The article is mostly about game theory, which has been a staple of economics for quite a while.<p>That said, I would be very wary of jumping to such endeavors simply because a particular branch of mathematics appears to supply a useful vernacular for a particular economic problem. More often than not, it leads to a situation where instead of offering new perspectives on problems, you simply repeat the same Walrasian equilibrium analysis or whatever orthodoxy, but in a more pompous language.<p>In fact, by far the most mind-bending and mentally invigorating economists have been those who have almost no mathematical analysis whatsoever. These include, for instance, GLS Shackle and Ludwig M. Lachmann. Their entirely verbal analyses has expanded understanding of real-world economic phenomena far more than papers on game theory, I&#x27;d argue.<p>Mathematical economics like the Solow-Swan growth model, Cobb-Douglas production functions, Walrasian auctioneer markets and Paretian static equilibrium models have sowed great confusion and unrealistic assumptions as much as they may have enlightened. A lot of misunderstandings on economic policy originate from taking comparative statics models too literally.<p>That said, there might be some use of theoretical CS. I&#x27;ve had the impression that process algebras like Hoare&#x27;s CSP for modeling concurrency can be used for some microfoundations and thought experiments. I don&#x27;t think any economist has done this yet.