In the forest, a fire occurs, observed by n >= 2 random walkers. Each walker wishes for firefighters to be informed but prefers someone else to make the call. Assume the following vNM preferences for each walker: Informing the firefighters assigns a value v, while calling each caller incurs a cost c∈(0, v). If firefighters are not informed, the utility is 0. a) Find all pure Nash equilibria. b) Find the symmetric mixed Nash equilibrium. What is the probability in the mixed Nash equilibrium that no one informs the firefighters? Does this latter probability increase or decrease with the number of walkers?

In the forest, a fire occurs, observed by n >= 2 random walkers. Each walker wishes for firefighters to be informed but prefers someone else to make the call. Assume the following vNM preferences for each walker: Informing the firefighters assigns a value v, while calling each caller incurs a cost c∈(0, v). If firefighters are not informed, the utility is 0. a) Find all pure Nash equilibria. b) Find the symmetric mixed Nash equilibrium. What is the probability in the mixed Nash equilibrium that no one informs the firefighters? Does this latter probability increase or decrease with the number of walkers?

Microeconomic Theory

12th Edition

ISBN:9781337517942

Author:NICHOLSON

Publisher:NICHOLSON

Chapter7: Uncertainty

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 7.3P

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

Two employees witness fraud committed in their firm. Each has two pure strategies: to become a whistleblower and report a crime, or not to report a crime. Each employee gets a payoff of 1 if the crime is reported by someone (it does not matter if both or only one employee reports). However, reporting the crime is costly. An employee who reports has to pay the cost of reporting equal to 0.5-0.25*d, where d=1 if the other employee also reports, and d=0 otherwise. Suppose that employees simultaneously decide to report or not. There is a unique mixed strategy Nash equilibrium in this game where each employee reports with the same positive probability less than 1. What is the probability that the crime is reported by at least one employee in such an equilibrium? ________
At a company, 20 employees are making contributions for a retirement gift.Each person is choosing how many dollars to contribute from the interval[0,10]. The payoff to person i is bi X xi - xi, where bi > 0 is the “warm glow”he receives from each dollar he contributes, and he incurs a personal cost of 1.a. Assume bi < 1 for all i. Find all Nash equilibria. How much is collected?b. Assume bi > 1 for all i. Find all Nash equilibria. How much is collected?c. Assume bi = 1 for all i. Find all Nash equilibria. How much is collected?Now suppose the manager of these 20 employees has announced that shewill contribute d > 0 dollars for each dollar that an employee contributes.The warm glow effect to employee i from contributing a dollar is now bi X(1 + d) because each dollar contributed actually results in a total contribution of 1 + d. Assume bi = 0.1 for i = 1, . . . , 5; bi = 0.2 for i = 6, . . . , 10; bi = 0.25 for i = 11, . . . , 15; and bi = 0.5 for i = 16, . . . , 20.d. What…
100 people are choosing between two beaches to go to in the Florida Keys. Beach L is big and never gets crowded, but it is not very nice; the utility from going to Beach L is u(L) = 60. Beach M is much nicer but very small, so it gets crowded; the utility from going to Beach M is u(M) = 100-NM ; NM is the number of people that %3D go to Beach M. 5) The Nash equilibrium number of people that go to Beach L is A) 20 B) 40 C) 60 D) 80 E) 100 5).
Two people are involved in a dispute. Person 1 does not know whether person 2 is strong or weak; she assigns probability a to person 2's being strong. Person 2 is fully informed. Each person can either fight or yield. Each person's preferences are represented by the expected value of a Bernoulli payoff function that assigns the payoff of 0 if she yields (regardless of the other person's action) and a payoff of 1 if she fights and her opponent yields; if both people fight then their payoffs are (-1, 1) if person 2 is strong and (1, -1) if person 2 is weak. Formulate this situation as a Bayesian game and find its Nash equilibria if a 1/2.
Suppose there are two players playing a game with east or west and south and nerth ways. Find the expected Nash equilibrium by using the concept of probabilities. Player X Left[L) Right|R) Player Y Up(U) (5,6) (0,8) (4,6) Down[D) (0,9)
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…
Consider the following voting game. There are three players, 1, 2 and 3. And there are three alternatives: A, B and C. Players vote simultaneously for an alternative. Abstaining is not allowed. Thus, the strategy space for each player is {A, B, C}. The alternative with the most votes wins. If no alternative receives a majority, then alternative A is selected. Denote ui(d) the utility obtained by player i if alternave d {A, B, C} is selected. The payoff functions are, u1 (A) = u2 (B) = u3 (C) = 2 u1 (B) = u2 (C) = u3 (A) = 1 u1 (C) = u2 (A) = u3 (B) = 0 a. Let us denote by (i, j, k) a profile of pure strategies where player 1’s strategy is (to vote for) i, player 2’s strategy is j and player 3’s strategy is k. Show that the pure strategy profiles (A,A,A) and (A,B,A) are both Nash equilibria. b. Is (A,A,B) a Nash equilibrium? Comment.
There are three bidders participating in a first-price auction for a painting. Each bidder has a private, independent value vi for such a painting that is drawn uniformly from [0,1] Assume that each bidder i has a linear bidding function bi=avi, where a>0. What is the bidding strategy of bidder i , namely bi in the Bayesian equilibrium?
Game Theory Consider the entry game with incomplete information studied in class. An incumbent politician's cost of campaigning can be high or low and the entrant does not know this cost (but the incumbent does). In class, we found two pure-strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibria in this game. Assume that the probability that the cost of campaigning is high is a parameter p, 0 < p < 1. Show that when p is large enough, there is only one pure-strategy Bayesian Nash Equilibrium. What is it? What is the intuition? How large does p have to be? Note:- Do not provide handwritten solution. Maintain accuracy and quality in your answer. Take care of plagiarism. Answer completely. You will get up vote for sure.
In 'the dictator' game, one player (the dictator) chooses how to divide a pot of $10 between herself and another player (the recipient). The recipient does not have an opportunity to reject the proposed distribution. As such, if the dictator only cares about how much money she makes, she should keep all $10 for herself and give the recipient nothing. However, when economists conduct experiments with the dictator game, they find that dictators often offer strictly positive amounts to the recipients. Are dictators behaving irrationally in these experiments? Whether you think they are or not, your response should try to provide an explanation for the behavior.
Consider an odd type of student who prefers to study alone except when the group is large. We have four of these folks: Melissa, Josh, Samina, and Wei. Melissa and Josh are deciding between studying in the common room in their dorm (which we will denote D) and the library (denoted L). Samina and Wei are choosing between the library and the local cafe (denoted C). If someone is the only person at a location, then his or her payoff is 6. If he or she is one of two people at a location, then the payoff is 2. If he or she is one of three people, then the payoff is 1. If all four end up together, then the payoff is 8.a. Is it a Nash equilibrium for Melissa and Josh to study in the commonroom and for Samina and Wei to study in the cafe?b. Is it a Nash equilibrium for Josh to study in the common room, Saminato study in the cafe, and Melissa and Wei to study in the library?c. Find the Nash equilibria.
Consider the following game, with a risk-neutral principal with preferences π = q - w hiring an agent 2, and the agent can = with preferences U = √w- - e.. The agent's reservation utility is given by U choose between an effort level of 0 or an effort level of 10. Output is either 0 or 400 and follows the following probability distribution, a function of effort level and some uncertain factor: Probability (q=0) Probability (q=400) 0.4 0.9 e=0 0.6 e-10 0.1 a) Illustrate this game of moral hazard using a fully labeled game tree with payouts.