Non-equilibrium game theory.
-
What does it mean to have common knowledge that all players are "rational" without knowing what function they implement?
Maybe you know that their function maximizes an expected utility, and you know their utility function, and you even know that there's a common prior between you wrt the game being played, but all you know about their beliefs about you is that they know those same things about you
-
-
Because an infallible superbeing told you so?
-
More like, because you were constructed for the purpose of being a convenient thought experiment.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
In an antisymmetric coordination game (you like vanilla, I like chocolate, but we only get ice cream if we both choose the same flavor), if we have no way to break symmetry then we just have to flip a coin.
-
So, partly I want strong advice about what to do when you don't know what equilibrium you're in. Partly I want a rationality concept for when none exists, like what happens when you consider coalition-proof equilibria, or when you don't have a coin to flip.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Game implies imperfect knowledge of the nature and scope of agents
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.