求解一道博弈证明题

是 否 +2 论坛币

k人 参与回答

经管之家送您一份

应届毕业生专属福利!

求职就业群

赵安豆老师微信：zhaoandou666

经管之家联合CDA

送您一个全额奖学金名额~ !

立即领取

感谢您参与论坛问题回答

经管之家送您两个论坛币！

+2 论坛币

Prove the following lemma: Let G be a finite strategic game, and let G` be a strategic game obtained by eliminating a weakly dominated action in G. If a* is a NE(nash equilibrium) of G`, then it is also a NE(nash equilibrium) of G.

没有证明思路

扫码加我 拉你入群

请注明：姓名-公司-职位

以便审核进群资格，未注明则拒绝

分享0 收藏0 回帖

关键词：证明题 equilibrium Strategic Dominated following 博弈

Let Ai be the set of pure strategies of player i in game G. Ai` be the set of pure strategies of game G`. Note that Ai \Ai`=/=empty for some i since some weakly dominated strategies are eliminated from G to G`.

Now a* is a NE in G`, by definition , for all i and ai in Ai`, ui(ai*, a-i*)>= ui (ai, a-i*). For any si in Ai \ Ai`, since si is weakly dominated, there exists some bi in Ai` such that ui(bi, a-i*)>=ui(si,a-i*). But then ui(ai*, a-i*)>=ui(si,a-i*). Thus ai* is still a best response to a-i* in the original game G. This argument is true for all other players, so a* is a NE in G

没看懂啊

vesperw 发表于 2012-12-4 12:07
Let Ai be the set of pure strategies of player i in game G. Ai` be the set of pure strategies of gam ...

多谢！

L03我爱罗-_ 发表于 2012-12-4 14:05
没看懂啊

是题目还是2楼的证明？