To explain: how the assumption that players maximize payoffs in
Answer to Problem 1RQ
Despite the relevance in the outcomes of game theory and utility analysis, both the concepts cannot be equated for the constraints and features involved in these concepts.
Explanation of Solution
In game theory, any player with the goal of earning high profits will maximize the payoffs. On the other hand, in
However, both these concepts cannot be considered similar. There are various reasons for considering this statement to be true.
One reason is that while there are various intense contradictions among the players in the game theory, there is no such witness of contradictions in the demand and utility analysis.
Want to see more full solutions like this?
Chapter 5 Solutions
EBK INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS AND ITS
- Consider the following Guessing Game. There are n = 10 players simultaneously choosing a number in {1, 2, 3}. The winners are those closest to 1/2 the average guess (they evenly split the prize between the winners if there is more than one). Find the set of rationalizable strategy profiles. Justify your answer. please no handwriting and this course about game theory (topic Rationalizability) answer with all steps, pleasearrow_forwardImagine a game where individuals can be either cooperative (like splitting a resource) or selfish (like grabbing the entire resource). Depending on the relative costs and benefits of interacting and the resource, there might be a variety of possible payoff matrices for such an interaction. Of the following matrices, which one illustrates the largest “temptation to cheat?”arrow_forwardConsider a normal form game in which player 1 has two strategies, A1,B1 and player 2 has two strategies, A2,B2. Suppose that A1 is a best response to A2 and A2 is a best response to A1. Do we know whether A1 is rationalizable?arrow_forward
- Suppose that you and a friend play a matching pennies game in which each of you uncovers a penny. If both pennies show heads or both show tails, you keep both. If one shows heads and the other shows tails, your friend keeps them. Show the pay- off matrix. What, if any, is the pure-strategy Nash equilibrium to this game? Is there a mixed-strategy Nash equilibrium? If so, what is it?arrow_forwardGame theory can capture strategic situations where your outcome depends not only upon your own choice but also upon the choice of another. Present a coordination game of your choice where you and another player each have two choices or strategies. Explain in words the Nash Equilibrium concept, and identify the Nash equilibrium or Nash equilibria for your game. Explain why the outcomes that are not Nash equilibria are not.arrow_forwardEconomics Game theory: Consider a collective action game with thirty individuals (N = 30). When the number of participants in the joint project is n, each individual, including shirkers, receives a benefit of B(n) = 18n and each participant incurs a cost of C(n) = 32 – 2n. Please answer the questions I am asking! 1. Find all of the Nash equilibria, both stable and unstable ones. 2. Find the socially optimal outcome. 3. Check if any of the Nash equilibria is socially optimal. Explain your answer.arrow_forward
- Here is a payoff matrix that is interesting. I am not in an imaginative mood, so I won't try to tell a story about why the payoffs come out this way. Find all the pure-strategy Nash equilibria. Is this a game where you expect that players would end up in a Nash equilibrium? What would you expect to happen and why? Row Top Row Bottom Column Left 4, -3000 12,8 Column Right 10,6 5, 4arrow_forwardSuppose two players play the prisoners' dilemma game a finite number of times, both players are rational, and the game is played with complete information, is a tit-for-tat strategy optimal in this case? Explain using your own words.arrow_forwardA special situation that is taken from game theory where two individuals, even though they would benefit from working together, have incentives to act differently is calledarrow_forward
- Susan and Selena are having a challenge to throw balls at each other. If they both do it, they will get seriously injured. If one does it but the other doesn't, then the former wins. If they both quit, it is a tie between the both of them. Use a game theoretic analysis of this and make assumptions about the payoffs.arrow_forwardUse the following payoff matrix to answer the questions below. Cooperate Defect 1 Cooperate 100, 100 40, 125 Defect 125, 40 50, 50 Which player (if any) has a Dominant Strategy? [ Select ] What is the Nash Equilibrium of this game? [ Select ] Does this game satisfy the definition of a prisoner's dilemma? [ Select ]arrow_forwardYou have just played rock, paper, scissors with your friend. You chose scissors and he chose paper, so you won. Is this a Nash equilibrium? Explain why or why not.arrow_forward
- Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage LearningExploring EconomicsEconomicsISBN:9781544336329Author:Robert L. SextonPublisher:SAGE Publications, IncManagerial Economics: Applications, Strategies an...EconomicsISBN:9781305506381Author:James R. McGuigan, R. Charles Moyer, Frederick H.deB. HarrisPublisher:Cengage Learning