Question

Two shopowners must decide the location of their respective shops along an interval $[0,1]$. Player 1 sells cheap sports equipment, whereas Player 2 deals in elegant sports gear. As side-by-side comparison is, on average, favorable to the merchant of cheap equipment, the players face an inelastic demand; Player 1 wants to locate as close as possible to Player 2, whereas Player 2 tries to move as far as possible from Player 1. We assume that the profit functions take the following form. $$ \begin{array}{rlrl} \mathrm{x}_1=\mathrm{x}_2=[0,1] & & \\ \mathrm{u}_1\left(\mathrm{x}_1, \mathrm{x}_2\right) & =1-\left|\mathrm{x}_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| & & \\ \mathrm{u}_2\left(\mathrm{x}_1, \mathrm{x}_2\right) & =\left|\mathrm{x}_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| & & \text { if }\left|\mathrm{x}_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| \leq \frac{2}{3} \\ & =\frac{2}{3} & & \text { if }\left|x_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| \geq \frac{2}{3} \end{array} $$ Notice the negative externalities imposed by Player 1 on Player 2 vanish when their distance is at least $2 / 3$. The pure-strategy game has no Nash equilibrium. Show that Glicksberg's theorem implies the existence of a mixed Nash equilibrium. Check that the following pair is a Nash equilibrium. $$ \begin{aligned} & \mu_1^*=\frac{1}{3} \delta_0+\frac{1}{6} \delta_{\frac{1}{3}}+\frac{1}{6} \delta_{\frac{2}{3}}+\frac{1}{3} \delta_1 \\ & \mu_2^*=\frac{1}{2} \delta_0+\frac{1}{2} \delta_1 \end{aligned} $$ Neither of these two mixed strategies are completely mixed. However $\left(\mu_1^*, \mu_2^*\right)$ share the typical property of completely mixed equilibria, namely, $$ \begin{array}{ll} \overline{\mathrm{u}}_1\left(\mu_1, \mu *_2\right)=\overline{\mathrm{u}}_1\left(\mu_1^*, \mu_2^*\right) & \text { al1 } \mu_1 \in \mathrm{M}_1 \\ \overline{\mathrm{u}}_2\left(\mu{ }_1^*, \mu_2\right)=\overline{\mathrm{u}}_2\left(\mu_1^*, \mu_2^*\right) & \text { al1 } \mu_2 \in \mathrm{M}_2 \end{array} $$

   Two shopowners must decide the location of their respective shops along an interval $[0,1]$. Player 1 sells cheap sports equipment, whereas Player 2 deals in elegant sports gear. As side-by-side comparison is, on average, favorable to the merchant of cheap equipment, the players face an inelastic demand; Player 1 wants to locate as close as possible to Player 2, whereas Player 2 tries to move as far as possible from Player 1. We assume that the profit functions take the following form.
$$
\begin{array}{rlrl}
\mathrm{x}_1=\mathrm{x}_2=[0,1] & & \\
\mathrm{u}_1\left(\mathrm{x}_1, \mathrm{x}_2\right) & =1-\left|\mathrm{x}_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| & & \\
\mathrm{u}_2\left(\mathrm{x}_1, \mathrm{x}_2\right) & =\left|\mathrm{x}_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| & & \text { if }\left|\mathrm{x}_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| \leq \frac{2}{3} \\
& =\frac{2}{3} & & \text { if }\left|x_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| \geq \frac{2}{3}
\end{array}
$$
Notice the negative externalities imposed by Player 1 on Player 2 vanish when their distance is at least $2 / 3$.
The pure-strategy game has no Nash equilibrium. Show that Glicksberg's theorem implies the existence of a mixed Nash equilibrium. Check that the following pair is a Nash equilibrium.
$$
\begin{aligned}
& \mu_1^*=\frac{1}{3} \delta_0+\frac{1}{6} \delta_{\frac{1}{3}}+\frac{1}{6} \delta_{\frac{2}{3}}+\frac{1}{3} \delta_1 \\
& \mu_2^*=\frac{1}{2} \delta_0+\frac{1}{2} \delta_1
\end{aligned}
$$
Neither of these two mixed strategies are completely mixed.
However $\left(\mu_1^*, \mu_2^*\right)$ share the typical property of completely mixed equilibria, namely,
$$
\begin{array}{ll}
\overline{\mathrm{u}}_1\left(\mu_1, \mu *_2\right)=\overline{\mathrm{u}}_1\left(\mu_1^*, \mu_2^*\right) & \text { al1 } \mu_1 \in \mathrm{M}_1 \\
\overline{\mathrm{u}}_2\left(\mu{ }_1^*, \mu_2\right)=\overline{\mathrm{u}}_2\left(\mu_1^*, \mu_2^*\right) & \text { al1 } \mu_2 \in \mathrm{M}_2
\end{array}
$$
Show more…
Game Theory for the Social Sciences
Game Theory for the Social Sciences
Herve Moulin 1st Edition
Chapter 7, Problem 22 ↓

Instant Answer

verified

Step 1

Glicksberg's theorem is a result in game theory that guarantees the existence of a mixed Nash equilibrium in any finite game. It states that for any finite game, there exists a mixed strategy profile that is a Nash equilibrium. In this particular game, we are  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
Two shopowners must decide the location of their respective shops along an interval $[0,1]$. Player 1 sells cheap sports equipment, whereas Player 2 deals in elegant sports gear. As side-by-side comparison is, on average, favorable to the merchant of cheap equipment, the players face an inelastic demand; Player 1 wants to locate as close as possible to Player 2, whereas Player 2 tries to move as far as possible from Player 1. We assume that the profit functions take the following form. $$ \begin{array}{rlrl} \mathrm{x}_1=\mathrm{x}_2=[0,1] & & \\ \mathrm{u}_1\left(\mathrm{x}_1, \mathrm{x}_2\right) & =1-\left|\mathrm{x}_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| & & \\ \mathrm{u}_2\left(\mathrm{x}_1, \mathrm{x}_2\right) & =\left|\mathrm{x}_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| & & \text { if }\left|\mathrm{x}_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| \leq \frac{2}{3} \\ & =\frac{2}{3} & & \text { if }\left|x_1-\mathrm{x}_2\right| \geq \frac{2}{3} \end{array} $$ Notice the negative externalities imposed by Player 1 on Player 2 vanish when their distance is at least $2 / 3$. The pure-strategy game has no Nash equilibrium. Show that Glicksberg's theorem implies the existence of a mixed Nash equilibrium. Check that the following pair is a Nash equilibrium. $$ \begin{aligned} & \mu_1^*=\frac{1}{3} \delta_0+\frac{1}{6} \delta_{\frac{1}{3}}+\frac{1}{6} \delta_{\frac{2}{3}}+\frac{1}{3} \delta_1 \\ & \mu_2^*=\frac{1}{2} \delta_0+\frac{1}{2} \delta_1 \end{aligned} $$ Neither of these two mixed strategies are completely mixed. However $\left(\mu_1^*, \mu_2^*\right)$ share the typical property of completely mixed equilibria, namely, $$ \begin{array}{ll} \overline{\mathrm{u}}_1\left(\mu_1, \mu *_2\right)=\overline{\mathrm{u}}_1\left(\mu_1^*, \mu_2^*\right) & \text { al1 } \mu_1 \in \mathrm{M}_1 \\ \overline{\mathrm{u}}_2\left(\mu{ }_1^*, \mu_2\right)=\overline{\mathrm{u}}_2\left(\mu_1^*, \mu_2^*\right) & \text { al1 } \mu_2 \in \mathrm{M}_2 \end{array} $$
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