DOCSLIB.ORG

Game Theory, Geometry, Etc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Game Theory, Geometry, Etc The Beautiful Mind—John Forbes Nash, Jr.—His works in Game Theory, geometry, etc. have provided insight into the factors that govern chance and events in our daily lives. Chapter 12 Game Theory 12.1 Introduction to Game Theory 504 12.2 The Matrix Game 505 12.3 Strictly Determined Game: The Saddle Point 507 12.4 Games with Mixed Strategies 511 12.5 Reducing Matrix Games to Systems of Equations 518 Critical Thinking and Basic Exercise 521 Summary of Important Concepts 522 Review Test 523 References 523 The Joy of Finite Mathematics Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 503 504 Chapter 12 Game Theory JOHN VON NEUMANN (1903-1957) John von Neumann, one of the foremost twentieth-century mathematicians, was born in Budapest, Hungary on December 28, 1903. He was a general scientific prodigy, in the mode of some of his great predecessors. He received his formal education at the University of Berlin, the Technical Institute in Zurich, and the University of Budapest, where he earned his Ph.D. in mathematics in 1926 at the age of twenty. Von Neumann taught at the University of Hamburg from 1926 until 1929. He left Germany in 1930, just before the Second World War, taking refuge in this country, where he accepted a professorship in mathematical physics at Princeton University. He became professor of mathematics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, New Jersey, when it was founded in 1933, retaining this position until his death in 1957. Von Neumann was one of the founders of game theory. In 1944 he collaborated with Oskar Morgenstern on a book, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. This important and initial comprehensive treatment of game theory offered a new approach to the study of economic behavior through the use of game-theoretic methods. The development of the first electronic computers at the institute was directed by von Neumann. He initiated the concept of stored programs in the computer—that programs and data should be treated similarly. This was one of the major break- throughs in computer development. Among the computers for which von Neumann is credited are the MANIAC, NORC, and ORDVAC. Von Neumann served on the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and consulted on the Atomic Bomb Project at Los Alamos. In 1956, he received the $50,000 Enrico Fermi award for his outstanding work on computer theory, design, and construction. 12.1 INTRODUCTION TO GAME THEORY Game theory is a relatively new branch of mathematics; it is the study of the rational behavior of people in conflict situations. The conflict may be between individuals involved in a game of chance, between teams engaged in an athletic contest, between nations engaged in war, or between firms engaged in compe- tition for a share of the market for a certain product. In our study of game theory, we shall refer to each contestant as a player and restrict our investiga- tions to games employing two players. In general, however, we need not restrict ourselves to conflicts generated by two players only; such games can involve any number of players. 12.2 The Matrix Game 505 The two players involved in a game have precisely opposite interests. Each Reality is broken: why games make us better and player has a specified number of actions from which to choose. However, the how this changes the world. action taken by one of the players at a particular stage of the game is not known Jane McGonigal to the other player. Each of the players has a certain objective in mind, and he attempts to choose his actions so as to achieve this aim. Definition 12.1.1 Game Theory Game theory is concerned with the analysis of human behavior in conflict situations. In our brief introduction to the subject, we have considered only games between two persons (players); however, they may involve any number of players, teams, companies and so forth. The initial study of game theory was conducted independently by John von Neumann and Emil Borel during the 1920s. After World War II, von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern formulated the subject area as an independent branch of mathematics. The close relationship between systems of equations and game theory will become apparent as we proceed with our study. 12.2 THE MATRIX GAME All reality is a game. Consider a modified version of the game “matching pennies.” Player P puts a 1 I. Banks coin either heads up, H, or tails up, T. A second Player P2 without knowing P1’s choice calls either “heads” or “tails.” Player P1 will pay Player P2 $5 if P1 shows H and P2 chooses H; Player P1 will pay Player P2 $3 if both have chosen T. However, if Player P2 guesses incorrectly, he must pay P1 $4 (that is, if P1 shows H and P2 guesses T,orifP1 shows T and P2 guesses H Player P2 must pay P1 $4). This game is a two-person game since there are two players involved. It can be displayed in the form of a matrix as follows: P2 HT H 254 P 1 T 4 23 The positive entries of the matrix denote the gains of Player P1, and his losses to Player P2 are the negative entries of the array. We designate P1, the role player and P2 the column player. Player P1’s two choices are each associated with a row of the matrix. Player P2’s choices are each associated with a column of the matrix. Thus, if P1 chooses row one and P2 chooses column one, then P1 pays P2 $5; instead, if P2 selects column two, then P2 pays P1 $4. Definition 12.2.1 Game Theory/Payoff Matrix The states of the game are given in the form of a matrix called the game matrix or payoff matrix. This game is a zero-sum game because whatever is lost or gained by P1 is gained or lost by P2. The matrix representation of the game is called the matrix game. Each entry of the matrix game represents the payoff to either player P1 or P2. Thus a matrix game is also referred to as the payoff matrix. 506 Chapter 12 Game Theory Definition 12.2.2 Two-person Zero Game A two-person zero-sum game is a game played by two opponents with opposing interest and such that the payoff to one player is equal to the loss of the other. The problem facing each player is what choice to make so that it will be in his best interest. That is, should P1 select row one or row two? Should P2, not knowing P1’s choice, select column one or column two? Before we proceed to discuss the method for choosing optimally, we shall summarize the basic concept and terminology constituting a two-person zero-sum game: (a) Two players, P1 and P2, are engaged in a conflict of interest. For example, in the game of “matching pennies,” P1 wants to maximize his winnings while P2 wants to minimize his losses. (b) Each player has at his disposal a set of instructions regarding the action to take in each conceivable position of the game. We shall refer to these instructions as strategies. (In the game given above each player has two strategies H and T.) (c) Associated with each strategy employed by P1, there is a certain payoff. The set of all strategies will result in an array of payoffs known as the matrix game or payoff matrix. For instance, in “matching pennies,” the payoff matrix was Strategieszfflffl}|fflffl{ of P2 HT H 254 Strategies of fP 1 T 4 23 (d) The objective of P1 is to utilize his strategies so as to maximize his win- nings; P2’s objective is to select his strategies so as to minimize his losses. (e) Such games are called zero-sum games or strictly competitive games, since the sum of the amounts won by the two players is always zero. Note: The winnings of one player are equal to the losses of the other. Like all mathematics, game theory is a tautology Example 12.2.1 Payoff Matrix whose conclusions are true because they are contained in the premises. Consider a two-person zero-sum game, the payoff matrix of which is given by R.A. Epstein P2 γ γ γ 1 2 3 β 2 1 213 P1 β 2 2 6 45 Here, there are two strategies available to Player P1; namely β1 and β2, and three strategies, γ1, γ2, γ3, available to Player P2. The entries in the matrix denote winnings of Player P1. Recall that negative entries mean that Player P1 will pay P2. In the game P1 chooses one of his two strategies, β1 or β2, and simultaneously, Player P2, without knowing P1’s choice selects γ1, γ2, γ3. The intersection of the row corresponding to P1’s choice and the column corresponding to P2’s selection gives the payoff of this play in the game. For example, if P1 chooses strategy β2 and P2 selects γ3, then P1 wins $5. If P1 chooses β1 and P2 selects γ1, then P1 receives $-2; that is, he must pay Player P2 $2. Here, we have the question of importance: What strategy should P1 choose to max- imize his winnings? At the same time, what should P2’s choice be to minimize his losses? The selection of strategies will be the focus of the remaining discussions in this chapter. 12.3 Strictly Determined Game: The Saddle Point 507 12.3 STRICTLY DETERMINED GAME: THE SADDLE POINT Let us consider a two-person game, the payoff matrix of which is given by Games lubricate the body and mind.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Abstract
    SN 1327-8231 ECONOMICS, ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT WORKING PAPER NO. 38 Neglected Features of the Safe Minimum Standard: Socio-economic and Institutional Dimensions by IRMI SEIDL AND CLEM TISDELL March 2000 THE UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND ISSN 1327-8231 WORKING PAPERS ON ECONOMICS, ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT Working Paper No. 38 Neglected Features of the Safe Minimum Standard: Socio-Economic and Institutional Dimensions by Irmi Seidl1 and Clem Tisdell2 March 2000 © All rights reserved 1 Irmi Seidl, Institut fuer Umweltwissenschaften, University of Zuerich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057, Zuerich, Switzerland. Email: [email protected] 2 School of Economics, The University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Australia Email: [email protected] WORKING PAPERS IN THE SERIES, Economics, Ecology and the Environment are published by the School of Economics, University of Queensland, 4072, Australia, as follow up to the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Project 40 of which Professor Clem Tisdell was the Project Leader. Views expressed in these working papers are those of their authors and not necessarily of any of the organisations associated with the Project. They should not be reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the Project Leader. It is planned to publish contributions to this series over the next few years. Research for ACIAR project 40, Economic impact and rural adjustments to nature conservation (biodiversity) programmes: A case study of Xishuangbanna Dai Autonomous Prefecture, Yunnan, China was sponsored by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), GPO Box 1571, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia. The research for ACIAR project 40 has led in part, to the research being carried out in this current series.
    [Show full text]
  • OR-M5-Ktunotes.In .Pdf
    CHAPTER – 12 Decision Theory 12.1. INTRODUCTION The decisions are classified according to the degree of certainty as deterministic models, where the manager assumes complete certainty and each strategy results in a unique payoff, and Probabilistic models, where each strategy leads to more than one payofs and the manager attaches a probability measure to these payoffs. The scale of assumed certainty can range from complete certainty to complete uncertainty hence one can think of decision making under certainty (DMUC) and decision making under uncertainty (DMUU) on the two extreme points on a scale. The region that falls between these extreme points corresponds to the concept of probabilistic models, and referred as decision-making under risk (DMUR). Hence we can say that most of the decision making problems fall in the category of decision making under risk and the assumed degree of certainty is only one aspect of a decision problem. The other way of classifying is: Linear or non-linear behaviour, static or dynamic conditions, single or multiple objectives.KTUNOTES.IN One has to consider all these aspects before building a model. Decision theory deals with decision making under conditions of risk and uncertainty. For our purpose, we shall consider all types of decision models including deterministic models to be under the domain of decision theory. In management literature, we have several quantitative decision models that help managers identify optima or best courses of action. Complete uncertainty Degree of uncertainty Complete certainty Decision making Decision making Decision-making Under uncertainty Under risk Under certainty. Before we go to decision theory, let us just discuss the issues, such as (i) What is a decision? (ii) Why must decisions be made? (iii) What is involved in the process of decision-making? (iv) What are some of the ways of classifying decisions? This will help us to have clear concept of decision models.
    [Show full text]
  • VCTAL Game Theory Module.Docx
    Competition or Collusion? Game Theory in Security, Sports, and Business A CCICADA Homeland Security Module James Kupetz, Luzern County Community College [email protected] Choong-Soo Lee, St. Lawrence University [email protected] Steve Leonhardi, Winona State University [email protected] 1/90 Competition or Collusion? Game Theory in Security, Sports, and Business Note to teachers: Teacher notes appear in dark red in the module, allowing faculty to pull these notes off the teacher version to create a student version of the module. Module Summary This module introduces students to game theory concepts and methods, starting with zero-sum games and then moving on to non-zero-sum games. Students learn techniques for classifying games, for computing optimal solutions where known, and for analyzing various strategies for games in which no optimal solution exists. Finally, students have the opportunity to transfer what they’ve learned to new game-theoretic situations. Prerequisites Students should be able to use the skills learned in High School Algebra 1, including the ability to graph linear equations, find points of intersection, and algebraically solve systems of two linear equations in two unknowns. Knowledge of basic probability (such as should be learned by the end of 9th grade) is also required; experience with computing expected value would be helpful, but can be taught as part of the module. No computer programming experience is required or involved, although students with some programming knowledge may be able to adapt their knowledge to optional projects. Suggested Uses This module can be used with students in grades 10-14 in almost any class, but is best suited to students in mathematics, economics, political science, or computer science courses.
    [Show full text]
  • Game Theory and Strictly Determined Games • Zero-Sum Game - a Game in Which the Payoff to One Party Results in an Equal Loss to the Other
    Math 166 Spring 2007 c Heather Ramsey Page 1 Math 166 - Week in Review #11 Section 9.4 - Game Theory and Strictly Determined Games • Zero-sum Game - a game in which the payoff to one party results in an equal loss to the other. • The entries in a payoff matrix represent the earnings of the row player. • Maximin Strategy 1. For each row of the payoff matrix, find the smallest entry in that row and underline it. 2. Find the largest underlined number and note the row that it is in. This row gives the row player’s “best” move. • Minimax Strategy 1. For each column of the payoff matrix, find the largest entry in that column and circle it. 2. Find the smallest circled number and note the column that it is in. This column gives the column player’s “best” move. • Strictly Determined Game - A strictly determined game has the following properties: 1. There is an entry in the payoff matrix that is simultaneously the smallest entry in its row and the largest entry in its column (i.e., there is one entry that is both underlined and circles at the same time). This entry is called the saddle point for the game. 2. The optimal strategy for the row player is precisely the maximin strategy and is the row containing the saddle point. The optimal strategy for the column player is the minimax strategy and is the column containing the saddle point. • The saddle point of a strictly determined game is also referred to as the value of the game.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.2 Production Function
    13 MM VENKATESHWARA OPEN UNIVERSITY MICROECONOMIC THEORY www.vou.ac.in MICROECONOMIC THEORY MICROECONOMIC MICROECONOMIC THEORY MA [MEC-102] VENKATESHWARA OPEN UNIVERSITYwww.vou.ac.in MICROECONOMIC THEORY MA [MEC-102] BOARD OF STUDIES Prof Lalit Kumar Sagar Vice Chancellor Dr. S. Raman Iyer Director Directorate of Distance Education SUBJECT EXPERT Bhaskar Jyoti Neog Assistant Professor Dr. Kiran Kumari Assistant Professor Ms. Lige Sora Assistant Professor Ms. Hage Pinky Assistant Professor CO-ORDINATOR Mr. Tauha Khan Registrar Authors Dr. S.L. Lodha, (Units: 1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.7, 5.2, 5.3.1, 5.4, 9.4, 10.2, 10.3, 10.3.2) © Dr. S.L. Lodha, 2019 D.N. Dwivedi, (Units: 1.3, 1.5, 1.8, 2.2-2.4, 3.2-3.3, 3.4.1-3.4.2, 4.2-4.4, 5.3, 5.5-5.6, 6.2-6.4, 6.5.2-6.7, 7.2-7.4, 8.2-8.5.2, 8.6, 9.2-9.3, 10.2.1-10.2.2) © D.N. Dwivedi, 2019 Dr. Renuka Sharma & Dr. Kiran Mehta, (Units: 3.4.3-3.4.5, 7.5, 8.7) © Dr. Renuka Sharma & Dr. Kiran Mehta, 2019 Vikas Publishing House (Units: 1.0-1.1, 1.9-1.13, 2.0-2.1, 2.5-2.9, 3.0-3.1, 3.4, 3.5-3.9, 4.0-4.1, 4.5-4.9, 5.0-5.1, 5.7-5.11, 6.0-6.1, 6.5-6.5.1, 6.8-6.12, 7.0-7.1, 7.6-7.10, 8.0-8.1, 8.5.3, 8.8-8.12, 9.0-9.1, 9.5-9.9, 10.0-10.1, 10.3.1, 10.4-10.8) © Reserved, 2019 All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Asymptotically Optimal Strategy-Proof Mechanisms for Two-Facility Games
    Asymptotically Optimal Strategy-proof Mechanisms for Two-Facility Games Pinyan Lu∗ Xiaorui Suny Yajun Wangz Zeyuan Allen Zhux Abstract We consider the problem of locating facilities in a metric space to serve a set of selfish agents. The cost of an agent is the distance between her own location and the nearest facility. The social cost is the total cost of the agents. We are interested in designing strategy-proof mechanisms without payment that have a small approximation ratio for social cost. A mechanism is a (possibly randomized) algorithm which maps the locations reported by the agents to the locations of the facilities. A mechanism is strategy-proof if no agent can benefit from misreporting her location in any configuration. This setting was first studied by Procaccia and Tennenholtz [21]. They focused on the facility game where agents and facilities are located on the real line. Alon et al. studied the mechanisms for the facility games in a general metric space [1]. However, they focused on the games with only one facility. In this paper, we study the two-facility game in a general metric space, which extends both previous models. We first prove an Ω(n) lower bound of the social cost approximation ratio for deterministic strategy- proof mechanisms. Our lower bound even holds for the line metric space. This significantly improves the previous constant lower bounds [21, 17]. Notice that there is a matching linear upper bound in the line metric space [21]. Next, we provide the first randomized strategy-proof mechanism with a constant approximation ratio of 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Approximate Strategyproofness
    Approximate Strategyproofness The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Benjamin Lubin and David C. Parkes. 2012. Approximate strategyproofness. Current Science 103, no. 9: 1021-1032. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11879945 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP Approximate Strategyproofness Benjamin Lubin David C. Parkes School of Management School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Boston University Harvard University [email protected] [email protected] July 24, 2012 Abstract The standard approach of mechanism design theory insists on equilibrium behavior by par- ticipants. This assumption is captured by imposing incentive constraints on the design space. But in bridging from theory to practice, it often becomes necessary to relax incentive constraints in order to allow tradeo↵s with other desirable properties. This paper surveys a number of dif- ferent options that can be adopted in relaxing incentive constraints, providing a current view of the state-of-the-art. 1 Introduction Mechanism design theory formally characterizes institutions for the purpose of establishing rules that engender desirable outcomes in settings with multiple, self-interested agents each with private information about their preferences. In the context of mechanism design, an institution is formalized as a framework wherein messages are received from agents and outcomes selected on the basis of these messages.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relevance. of Game Theory in Its Application To
    THE RELEVANCE. OF GAME THEORY IN ITS APPLICATION TO DECISION MAKING IN COMPETITIVE BUSINESS SITUATIONS by KIM SEAH NG 3. E... (Plonsv) University of Malaya, 1965* A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT 0] THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE 0? MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION In the Faculty of. Commerce and Business Administration Me accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY. OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July, . 1968. In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and Study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by hils representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Coronerce and Business Administration. The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Da te Tuly 22. ? 1968 ABSTRACT It is known that in situations where we have to make decisions, and in which the.outcomes depend on opponents whose actions we have no control, current quantitative tech• niques employed are inadequate. These are depicted in the complex competitive environment of to-day's- business world. The technique that proposes to overcome this problem •is the methodology of game theory.- Game theory is not a new invention but has been introduced to economists and. mathema• ticians with the publication of von Neumann and Horgenstern1s book "Theory of Games and Economic Behavior".
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Cooperative Games on Networks
    Non-Cooperative Games on Networks Martijn van der Merwe Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MSc (Operations Research) Department of Logistics, Stellenbosch University Supervisor: Prof JH van Vuuren Co-Supervisors: Dr AP Burger, Dr C Hui March 2013 Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Declaration By submitting this thesis electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly oth- erwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification. March 2013 Copyright c 2013 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved i Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za ii Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za Abstract There are many examples of cooperation in action in society and in nature. In some cases cooperation leads to the increase of the overall welfare of those involved, and in other cases cooperation may be to the detriment of the larger society. The presence of cooperation seems natural if there is a direct benefit to individuals who choose to cooperate. However, in exam- ples of cooperation this benefit is not always immediately obvious. The so called prisoner's dilemma is often used as an analogy to study cooperation and tease out the factors that lead to cooperation. In classical game theory, each player is assumed to be rational and hence typically seeks to select his strategy in such a way as to maximise his own expected pay-off.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Ambiguity Aversion
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Ambiguous games: Evidence for strategic ambiguity aversion Pulford, Briony D. and Colman, Andrew M. University of Leicester 2007 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/86345/ MPRA Paper No. 86345, posted 02 May 2018 04:07 UTC Ambiguous Games: Evidence for Strategic Ambiguity Aversion Briony D. Pulford and Andrew M. Colman University of Leicester 2007 Abstract The problem of ambiguity in games is discussed, and a class of ambiguous games is identified. 195 participants played strategic-form games of various sizes with unidentified co-players. In each case, they first chose between a known-risk game involving a co-player indifferent between strategies and an equivalent ambiguous game involving one of several co-player types, each with a different dominant strategy, then they chose a strategy for the preferred game. Half the players knew that the ambiguous co-player types were equally likely, and half did not. Half expected the outcomes to be known immediately, and half expected a week’s delay. Known-risk games were generally preferred, confirming a significant strategic ambiguity aversion effect. In the delay conditions, players who knew that the ambiguous co-player types were equally likely were significantly less ambiguity- averse than those who did not. Decision confidence was significantly higher in 2 × 2 than larger games. Keywords: ambiguity aversion; behavioural game theory; confidence; decision making; Ellsberg paradox; incomplete information; intolerance of uncertainty; psychological game theory; subjective expected utility. Games in which players cannot assign meaningful probabilities to their co-players’ strategies present a major challenge to game theory and to rational choice theory in general.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Pirates
    Quantum Pirates A Quantum Game-Theory Approach to The Pirate Game Daniela Fontes Instituto Superior T´ecnico [email protected] Abstract. In which we develop a quantum model for the voting system in the mathematical puzzle created by Omohundro and Stewart - \A puzzle for pirates ", also known as Pirate Game. This game is a multi-player version of the game \Ultimatum ", where the players (Pirates), must distribute fixed number of gold coins according to some rules. The classic game has a pure strategy Nash Equilibrium, however the game is maximally entangled, we could not find a pure strategy Nash Equilibrium. These results corroborate other quantum game theory models. Keywords: Quantum Game Theory; Pirate Game; Quantum Mechanics; Quantum Computing; Game Theory; Probability Theory 1 Introduction The rationale behind building a quantum version of a Game Theory and/or Statistics problem lays in bringing phenomena like quantum superposition, and entanglement into known frameworks. Converting known classical problems into quantum games is relevant to the familiarize with the potential differences these models bring. Also modelling games with quantum mechanics rules may also aid the development of new algorithms that would be ideally deployed using quantum computers [1]. From the point of view of Quantum Cognition (a domain that seeks to introduce Quantum Mechanics Concepts in the field of Cognitive Sciences), these games are approached from the perspective of trying to model the mental state of the players in a quantum manner. The Prisoner's Dilemma is an example of a problem that has been modelled in order to explain discrepancies from the theoretical results of the classical Game Theory approach and the way humans play the game [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Interaction in the Prisoner's
    STRATEGIC INTERACTION IN THE PRISONER’S DILEMMA: A GAME-THEDREHC DIMENSION OF CONFLICT RESEARCH submitted by Louis Joshua Marinoff for the Degree of Ph.D. in the Philosophy of Science at University College London ProQuest Number: 10609101 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a com plete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 10609101 Published by ProQuest LLC(2017). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C ode Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 2 ABSTRACT This four-part enquiry treats selected theoretical and empiri­ cal developments in the Prisoner's Dilemma. The enquiry is oriented within the sphere of game-theoretic conflict research, and addresses methodological and philosophical problems embedded in the model under consideration. In Part One, relevant taxonomic criteria of the von Neumann^ Morgenstem theory of games are reviewed, and controversies associ­ ated with both the utility function and game-theoretic rationality are introduced. In Part Two, salient contributions by Rapoport and others to the Prisoner's Dilemma are enlisted to illustrate the model's conceptual richness and problematic wealth. Conflicting principles of choice, divergent concepts of rational choice, and attempted resolutions of the dilemma are evaluated in the static mode.
    [Show full text]