Question

a) Consider first a two-plaer game with strategy sets $x_1=x_2=[-1,+1]$ (the real interval) and linear utility functions $$ u_1\left(x_1, x_2\right)=a x_1+b x_2, u_2\left(x_1, x_2\right)=c x_1+d x_2 $$ where a, b, c, d are four fixed real numbers. Clearly each player has a dominating strategy (unique if a - resp $d$ is nonzero). We are interested in configurations where a prisoner's dilemma arises, namely, the dominating strategy equilibrium is Pareto dominated. Prove that this is the case iff $$ a \cdot c<0, \quad b \cdot d<0, \text { and } 1<\frac{b \cdot c}{a \cdot d} $$ b) Now we have a n-person game with $X_i=[-1,+1]$, all $i=1, \ldots, n$, and Player i's utility function $$ u_i(x)=\sum_{j=1}^n a_i^j x_j $$ We assume $a^i \neq 0, a l 1 i=1, \ldots, n$. Denote by $x^*$ the unique dominating strategy equilibrium. Prove the equivalence of the three following statements: i) From the prisonner's dilemma effect, $x^*$ is a Pareto-dominated outcome. ii) There is an outcome $y \in X_N$ such that $$ \left\{a_i^i y_i>0 \text { and } u_i(y)<0\right\} \text { all } i=1, \ldots, n $$ This says that each player would be better off by using $y_i$ alone (i.e., while others stay put at strategy zero), but all will be worse off when they all use $y_i$. iii) For a $11 \mathrm{p}$, q $\varepsilon \mathrm{R}_{+}^{\mathrm{n}^{ }}$(vectors with nonnegative components); the system $$ \begin{aligned} &\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n p_i a_i^j=q_j a_j^j\right\} \quad a l 1 ~ j=1, \ldots, n \\ & \text { implies } p=q=0 . \end{aligned} $$ As an example, consider the game "provision of a public good": $$ u_i=-\alpha_i x_i+\lambda\left\{\sum_{j=1}^n x_j\right\} \quad \alpha_i>0 $$ Interpret $x_i$ as the (positive or negative) effort spent by $i$ for the common welfare, and $-\alpha_i$ as his marginal disutility for the effort. For which values of $\lambda$ do we have a prisonner's dilemma effect?

   a) Consider first a two-plaer game with strategy sets $x_1=x_2=[-1,+1]$ (the real interval) and linear utility functions
$$
u_1\left(x_1, x_2\right)=a x_1+b x_2, u_2\left(x_1, x_2\right)=c x_1+d x_2
$$
where a, b, c, d are four fixed real numbers. Clearly each player has a dominating strategy (unique if a - resp $d$ is nonzero).
We are interested in configurations where a prisoner's dilemma arises, namely, the dominating strategy equilibrium is Pareto dominated. Prove that this is the case iff
$$
a \cdot c<0, \quad b \cdot d<0, \text { and } 1<\frac{b \cdot c}{a \cdot d}
$$
b) Now we have a n-person game with $X_i=[-1,+1]$, all $i=1, \ldots, n$, and Player i's utility function
$$
u_i(x)=\sum_{j=1}^n a_i^j x_j
$$
We assume $a^i \neq 0, a l 1 i=1, \ldots, n$. Denote by $x^*$ the unique dominating strategy equilibrium. Prove the equivalence of the three following statements:
i) From the prisonner's dilemma effect, $x^*$ is a Pareto-dominated outcome.
ii) There is an outcome $y \in X_N$ such that
$$
\left\{a_i^i y_i>0 \text { and } u_i(y)<0\right\} \text { all } i=1, \ldots, n
$$
This says that each player would be better off by using $y_i$ alone (i.e., while others stay put at strategy zero), but all will be worse off when they all use $y_i$.
iii) For a $11 \mathrm{p}$, q $\varepsilon \mathrm{R}_{+}^{\mathrm{n}^{ }}$(vectors with nonnegative components); the system
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n p_i a_i^j=q_j a_j^j\right\} \quad a l 1 ~ j=1, \ldots, n \\
& \text { implies } p=q=0 .
\end{aligned}
$$
As an example, consider the game "provision of a public good":
$$
u_i=-\alpha_i x_i+\lambda\left\{\sum_{j=1}^n x_j\right\} \quad \alpha_i>0
$$
Interpret $x_i$ as the (positive or negative) effort spent by $i$ for the common welfare, and $-\alpha_i$ as his marginal disutility for the effort. For which values of $\lambda$ do we have a prisonner's dilemma effect?
Show more…
Game Theory for the Social Sciences
Game Theory for the Social Sciences
Herve Moulin 1st Edition
Chapter 3, Problem 4 ↓

Instant Answer

verified

Step 1

a) To prove that a prisoner's dilemma arises, we need to show that the dominating strategy equilibrium is Pareto dominated.  Show more…

Show all steps

lock
AceChat toggle button
Close icon
Ace pointing down

Please give Ace some feedback

Your feedback will help us improve your experience

Thumb up icon Thumb down icon
Thanks for your feedback!
Profile picture
a) Consider first a two-plaer game with strategy sets $x_1=x_2=[-1,+1]$ (the real interval) and linear utility functions $$ u_1\left(x_1, x_2\right)=a x_1+b x_2, u_2\left(x_1, x_2\right)=c x_1+d x_2 $$ where a, b, c, d are four fixed real numbers. Clearly each player has a dominating strategy (unique if a - resp $d$ is nonzero). We are interested in configurations where a prisoner's dilemma arises, namely, the dominating strategy equilibrium is Pareto dominated. Prove that this is the case iff $$ a \cdot c<0, \quad b \cdot d<0, \text { and } 1<\frac{b \cdot c}{a \cdot d} $$ b) Now we have a n-person game with $X_i=[-1,+1]$, all $i=1, \ldots, n$, and Player i's utility function $$ u_i(x)=\sum_{j=1}^n a_i^j x_j $$ We assume $a^i \neq 0, a l 1 i=1, \ldots, n$. Denote by $x^*$ the unique dominating strategy equilibrium. Prove the equivalence of the three following statements: i) From the prisonner's dilemma effect, $x^*$ is a Pareto-dominated outcome. ii) There is an outcome $y \in X_N$ such that $$ \left\{a_i^i y_i>0 \text { and } u_i(y)<0\right\} \text { all } i=1, \ldots, n $$ This says that each player would be better off by using $y_i$ alone (i.e., while others stay put at strategy zero), but all will be worse off when they all use $y_i$. iii) For a $11 \mathrm{p}$, q $\varepsilon \mathrm{R}_{+}^{\mathrm{n}^{ }}$(vectors with nonnegative components); the system $$ \begin{aligned} &\left\{\sum_{i=1}^n p_i a_i^j=q_j a_j^j\right\} \quad a l 1 ~ j=1, \ldots, n \\ & \text { implies } p=q=0 . \end{aligned} $$ As an example, consider the game "provision of a public good": $$ u_i=-\alpha_i x_i+\lambda\left\{\sum_{j=1}^n x_j\right\} \quad \alpha_i>0 $$ Interpret $x_i$ as the (positive or negative) effort spent by $i$ for the common welfare, and $-\alpha_i$ as his marginal disutility for the effort. For which values of $\lambda$ do we have a prisonner's dilemma effect?
Close icon
Play audio
Feedback
Powered by NumerAI
Need help? Use Ace
Ace is your personal tutor. It breaks down any question with clear steps so you can learn.
Start Using Ace
Ace is your personal tutor for learning
Step-by-step explanations
Instant summaries
Summarize YouTube videos
Understand textbook images or PDFs
Study tools like quizzes and flashcards
Listen to your notes as a podcast
Continue solving this problem
Create a free account to:
  • View full step-by-step solution
  • Ask follow-up questions with Ace AI
  • Save progress and study later
Continue Free
Join the community

18,000,000+

Students on Numerade


Trusted by students at 8,000+ universities

Numerade

Get step-by-step video solution
from top educators

Continue with Clever
or



By creating an account, you agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Already have an account? Log In

A free answer
just for you

Watch the video solution with this free unlock.

Numerade

Log in to watch this video
...and 100,000,000 more!


EMAIL

PASSWORD

OR
Continue with Clever