Provide explanation only for incorrect ones.... Please Suppose a stage game has exactly ane Nash equilibrium (select all that apply)a.In a finitely repeated game where players become more patient results other than the stage NE become feasible.D. In the SPNE of the twice repeated game players play the stage NE in both periods.C. The Folk Theorem introduced in the notes assumes that actions are observable.d. In a finitely repeated game where T becomes large, different outcomes can be supported as SPNE.e.Any outcome can be supported as a SPNE when the game is repeated infinitely many times and players are patient enough.

Nash equilibrium is a concept within game theory where the optimal outcome of a game is where there…

Suppose a stage game has exacty one Nash equibrium (select all that apply) Oa ina finitely repeated game where players become more patient resuits other than the stage NE become feasibie. Ob in the SPNE of the twice repeated game players play the stage NE in both periods. OC The Folk Theorem introduced in the notes assumes that actions are observable. Oe in a finitely repeated game where T becomes large, different outcomes can be supported as SPNE Oe. Any outcome can be supported as a SPNE when the game is repeated infinitely many times and piayers are patient enough.

Suppose a stage game has exacty one Nash equibrium (select all that apply) Oa ina finitely repeated game where players become more patient resuits other than the stage NE become feasibie. Ob in the SPNE of the twice repeated game players play the stage NE in both periods. OC The Folk Theorem introduced in the notes assumes that actions are observable. Oe in a finitely repeated game where T becomes large, different outcomes can be supported as SPNE Oe. Any outcome can be supported as a SPNE when the game is repeated infinitely many times and piayers are patient enough.

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter8: Game Theory

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 8.6P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Find all NE of the stage game.(b) Consider a two-period game without discounting in which the stage game is played ineach period. Find all pure strategy SPNE.(c) What’s the min-max payoff of each player?(c1) Consider pure strategies only.(c2) Consider all strategies, including the mixed ones.(d) Now suppose the stage game is repeated infinitely many times. Use the Fudenberg-Maskin Folk theorem to find all possible values of payoff that can be supported as aSPNE.
Consider the following coordination game: Player 2P1 Comedy Show Concert Comedy Show 11,5 0,0 Concert 0,0 2,2 a. Find the Nash equilibrium(s) for this game.b. Now assume Player 1 and Player 2 have distributional preferences. Specifically, both people greatly care about the utility of the other person. In fact, they place equal weight on their outcome and the other person’soutcome, ρ = σ = ½. Find the Nash equilibrium(s) with these utilitarianpreferences.c. Now consider the case where Player1 and Player2 do not like each other. Specifically, any positive outcome for the other person is viewed as anegative outcome for the individual, ρ = σ = -1. Find the Nashequilibrium(s) with these envious preferences.
Consider the location game we covered in Lecture 3. Now assume there arethree players (vendors). As we assumed in the lecture, consumers in each area choosethe closest vendor and if there are multiple closest vendors then these vendors receiveequal share of consumers in the area. Notice Si = {1, 2, 3, ...., 9} for i = 1, 2, 3. Here aresome examples of payoffs: u1(1, 1, 1) = 3, u1(1, 1, 9) = u2(1, 1, 9) = 2.25, u3(1, 1, 9) =4.5, u1(1, 5, 9) = u3(1, 5, 9) = 2.5 and u2(1, 5, 9) = 4. (a) Is s′1 = 1 strictly dominated by s′′1 = 2 for player 1?(b) Is s′1 = 1 weakly dominated by s′′1 = 2 for player 1?(c) Can you find a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies?
Consider the strategic form game shown. a. Assume that both players are rational. What happens?b. Assume that both players are rational and that each believes that theother is rational. What happens?c. Find the strategies that survive the ISDS.
Consider the game with the payoffs below. Which of the possible outcomes are MORE efficient than the Nash Equilibrium (NE)? Note, they do NOT need to be Nash equilibria themselves, they just need to be more efficient than the NE. Multiple answers are possible, but not necessary. You need to check ALL correct answers for full credit. JILL High Medium LowMAGGIE Left 3,4 2,3 2,2Center 4,8 9,7 8,7Right 7,6 8,5 9,4Group of answer choices (Left, Low) There is no strategy combination that is more efficient than the Nash equilibrium for this game. (Right, Medium) (Left, High) (Center, Medium) (Center, High) (Center, Low) (Left, Medium) (Right, Low) (Right, High)
Consider the following variation to the Rock (R), Paper (P), Scissors (S) game:• Suppose that the Player 1 (row player) has a single type, Normal.• Player 2 (column player) has two types Normal and Simple.• A player of Normal type plays this zero-sum game as we studied in class whereas a player of type Simple always play P.• Player 2 knows whether he is Normal or Simple, but player 1does not.a) Suppose player 2 is of type Normal with probability 1/3 and of type Simple with probability (2/3). Find all pure strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria.b) Suppose player 2 is of type Normal with probability 2/3 and of type Simple with probability (1/3). Find all pure strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria.
We’ll now show how a college degree can get you a better job even if itdoesn’t make you a better worker. Consider a two-player game between aprospective employee, whom we’ll refer to as the applicant, and an employer. The applicant’s type is her intellect, which may be low, moderate,or high, with probability 1/3 , 1/2 , and 1/6 , respectively. After the applicantlearns her type, she decides whether or not to go to college. The personalcost in gaining a college degree is higher when the applicant is less intelligent, because a less smart student has to work harder if she is to graduate. Assume that the cost of gaining a college degree is 2, 4, and 6 for an applicant who is of high, moderate, and low intelligence, respectively.The employer decides whether to offer the applicant a job as a manageror as a clerk. The applicant’s payoff to being hired as a manager is 15,while the payoff to being a clerk is 10. These payoffs are independent ofthe applicant’s type. The employer’s payoff from…
Paramter y = 0 If ⟨a, d⟩ is played in the first period and ⟨b, e⟩ is played in the second period, whatis the resulting (repeated game) payoff for the row player?
(a) Assuming that each fishery chooses fi ∈ (0,F), to maximize its payoff function, derive the players’ best response functions and find a Nash equilibrium. (b) Is the equilibrium you found in (a) unique or not? What are equilibrium payoffs? (c) Suppose that a benevolent social planner wants maximize the util- ity of both fisheries. In other words, the social planner solves the following problem: max w(f1, f2) = u1(f1, f2) + u2(f1, f2) (f1 ,f2 )= 2ln(f1)+2ln(f2)+2ln(F −f1 −f2). Find the social planner’s solution. (d) What are the fisheries’ payoffs if the quantities of fish they catch are solutions to the social planner’s problem? What can you say about the Nash equilibrium quantities of fish being caught as compared to the social planner’s solution? (e) If fishery j decides to follow the recommendation of the social planner, how much fish will firm i catch?
Suppose two bidders compete for a single indivisible item (e.g., a used car, a piece of art, etc.). We assume that bidder 1 values the item at $v1, and bidder 2 values the item at $v2. We assume that v1 > v2. In this problem we study a second price auction, which proceeds as follows. Each player i = 1, 2 simultaneously chooses a bid bi ≥ 0. The higher of the two bidders wins, and pays the second highest bid (in this case, the other player’s bid). In case of a tie, suppose the item goes to bidder 1. If a bidder does not win, their payoff is zero; if the bidder wins, their payoff is their value minus the second highest bid. a) Now suppose that player 1 bids b1 = v2 and player 2 bids b2 = v1, i.e., they both bid the value of the other player. (Note that in this case, player 2 is bidding above their value!) Show that this is a pure NE of the second price auction. (Note that in this pure NE the player with the lower value wins, while in the weak dominant strategy equilibrium where both…
Please no written by hand Two players bargain over how to split $10. Each player i ∈ {1, 2} choose a number si ∈ [0, 10] (which does not need to be an integer). Each player’s payoff is the money he receives. We consider two allocation rules. In each case, if s1 + s2 ≤ 10, each player gets his chosen amount si and the rest is destroyed. 1. In the first case, if s1 + s2 > 10, both players get zero. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 2. In the second case, if s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 6= s2, the player who chose the smallest amount receives this amount and the other gets the rest. If s1 + s2 > 10 and s1 = s2, they both get $5. What are the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria? 3. Now suppose that s1 and s2 must be integers. Does this change the (pure strategy) Nash equilibria in either case?
Paramter y = 0 What is the highest payoff any player can receive in any subgame perfect Nashequilibrium of the repeated game?