Equivalent definitions of perfect equilibrium of a normal form game

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Let $Gamma$ be a normal form game. An equilibrium $s$ of $Gamma$ is a perfect equilibrium of $Gamma$ if $s$ is a limit point of a sequence $s ( eta ) _eta downarrow 0$ with $s(eta)in E(Gamma,eta)$ for all $eta $ i.e. $s$ is perfect if there exist sequences $s(t)_t inmathbbN$ and $eta(t)_tin mathbbN$ with
$s(t)in E(Gamma,eta(t))$ for all $tinmathbbN
$, and such that $s(t)$ converges to $s$ and $eta(t)$ converges to zero, as $t$ tends to infinity.



My question is: how do I get and precisely understand the switch from $$s(eta) text to s(t)$$ ?







share|cite|improve this question























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $Gamma$ be a normal form game. An equilibrium $s$ of $Gamma$ is a perfect equilibrium of $Gamma$ if $s$ is a limit point of a sequence $s ( eta ) _eta downarrow 0$ with $s(eta)in E(Gamma,eta)$ for all $eta $ i.e. $s$ is perfect if there exist sequences $s(t)_t inmathbbN$ and $eta(t)_tin mathbbN$ with
    $s(t)in E(Gamma,eta(t))$ for all $tinmathbbN
    $, and such that $s(t)$ converges to $s$ and $eta(t)$ converges to zero, as $t$ tends to infinity.



    My question is: how do I get and precisely understand the switch from $$s(eta) text to s(t)$$ ?







    share|cite|improve this question





















      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $Gamma$ be a normal form game. An equilibrium $s$ of $Gamma$ is a perfect equilibrium of $Gamma$ if $s$ is a limit point of a sequence $s ( eta ) _eta downarrow 0$ with $s(eta)in E(Gamma,eta)$ for all $eta $ i.e. $s$ is perfect if there exist sequences $s(t)_t inmathbbN$ and $eta(t)_tin mathbbN$ with
      $s(t)in E(Gamma,eta(t))$ for all $tinmathbbN
      $, and such that $s(t)$ converges to $s$ and $eta(t)$ converges to zero, as $t$ tends to infinity.



      My question is: how do I get and precisely understand the switch from $$s(eta) text to s(t)$$ ?







      share|cite|improve this question











      Let $Gamma$ be a normal form game. An equilibrium $s$ of $Gamma$ is a perfect equilibrium of $Gamma$ if $s$ is a limit point of a sequence $s ( eta ) _eta downarrow 0$ with $s(eta)in E(Gamma,eta)$ for all $eta $ i.e. $s$ is perfect if there exist sequences $s(t)_t inmathbbN$ and $eta(t)_tin mathbbN$ with
      $s(t)in E(Gamma,eta(t))$ for all $tinmathbbN
      $, and such that $s(t)$ converges to $s$ and $eta(t)$ converges to zero, as $t$ tends to infinity.



      My question is: how do I get and precisely understand the switch from $$s(eta) text to s(t)$$ ?









      share|cite|improve this question










      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question









      asked Aug 7 at 20:08









      user122424

      9521614




      9521614




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          If I understand your question correctly, this is just notational density. You use $eta$ as the perturbation (minimal tremble) of the stratgies. That is $E(Gamma, eta)$ is the set of equilibria of the game $Gamma$ such that all strategies for all agents puts weight at least $eta$ on each action (pure strategy). We call an equilibrium proper if it can be approximated arbitrarily well by such restricted games.



          Your sequence $eta(t)$ is just $eta_1, eta_2, ...$, is a sequential relaxation of the perturbation of the game (in the sense of action weights). What is needed then is a corresponding sequence of equilibria $sbig(eta(t)big) in Ebig(Gamma, eta(t)big)$ that similarly converge to $s$. Think of it as approximation: if as a sequence of perturbations subsides to zero, we would wish that there is a sequence of equilibria of the perturbed games that converges (in the space of strategies) to the equilibrium of interest, $s$.



          In action, consider the following game.



          $$ beginarrayc hline
          & L & R \ hline
          T & 1,1 & 0,0 \ hline
          B & 0,0 & 0,0 \ hline
          endarray $$



          Clearly $B,R$ is an equilibrium. It is not, however, perfect. This is because $R$ is a best response for the column player if and only if the row player's strategy plays $B$ with probability one. In any tremble, row puts at most probability $1-eta$ on $B$, hence every equilibrium of every perturbed game with $eta > 0$ puts weight $eta$ on $R$ for column, hence as $etato 0$, any sequence of equilibria of perturbed games must converge toward $T,L$, the unique perfect equilibrium of this game.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer




            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            );
            );
            , "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: false,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );








             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875351%2fequivalent-definitions-of-perfect-equilibrium-of-a-normal-form-game%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest






























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            If I understand your question correctly, this is just notational density. You use $eta$ as the perturbation (minimal tremble) of the stratgies. That is $E(Gamma, eta)$ is the set of equilibria of the game $Gamma$ such that all strategies for all agents puts weight at least $eta$ on each action (pure strategy). We call an equilibrium proper if it can be approximated arbitrarily well by such restricted games.



            Your sequence $eta(t)$ is just $eta_1, eta_2, ...$, is a sequential relaxation of the perturbation of the game (in the sense of action weights). What is needed then is a corresponding sequence of equilibria $sbig(eta(t)big) in Ebig(Gamma, eta(t)big)$ that similarly converge to $s$. Think of it as approximation: if as a sequence of perturbations subsides to zero, we would wish that there is a sequence of equilibria of the perturbed games that converges (in the space of strategies) to the equilibrium of interest, $s$.



            In action, consider the following game.



            $$ beginarrayc hline
            & L & R \ hline
            T & 1,1 & 0,0 \ hline
            B & 0,0 & 0,0 \ hline
            endarray $$



            Clearly $B,R$ is an equilibrium. It is not, however, perfect. This is because $R$ is a best response for the column player if and only if the row player's strategy plays $B$ with probability one. In any tremble, row puts at most probability $1-eta$ on $B$, hence every equilibrium of every perturbed game with $eta > 0$ puts weight $eta$ on $R$ for column, hence as $etato 0$, any sequence of equilibria of perturbed games must converge toward $T,L$, the unique perfect equilibrium of this game.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              1
              down vote



              accepted










              If I understand your question correctly, this is just notational density. You use $eta$ as the perturbation (minimal tremble) of the stratgies. That is $E(Gamma, eta)$ is the set of equilibria of the game $Gamma$ such that all strategies for all agents puts weight at least $eta$ on each action (pure strategy). We call an equilibrium proper if it can be approximated arbitrarily well by such restricted games.



              Your sequence $eta(t)$ is just $eta_1, eta_2, ...$, is a sequential relaxation of the perturbation of the game (in the sense of action weights). What is needed then is a corresponding sequence of equilibria $sbig(eta(t)big) in Ebig(Gamma, eta(t)big)$ that similarly converge to $s$. Think of it as approximation: if as a sequence of perturbations subsides to zero, we would wish that there is a sequence of equilibria of the perturbed games that converges (in the space of strategies) to the equilibrium of interest, $s$.



              In action, consider the following game.



              $$ beginarrayc hline
              & L & R \ hline
              T & 1,1 & 0,0 \ hline
              B & 0,0 & 0,0 \ hline
              endarray $$



              Clearly $B,R$ is an equilibrium. It is not, however, perfect. This is because $R$ is a best response for the column player if and only if the row player's strategy plays $B$ with probability one. In any tremble, row puts at most probability $1-eta$ on $B$, hence every equilibrium of every perturbed game with $eta > 0$ puts weight $eta$ on $R$ for column, hence as $etato 0$, any sequence of equilibria of perturbed games must converge toward $T,L$, the unique perfect equilibrium of this game.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                1
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                1
                down vote



                accepted






                If I understand your question correctly, this is just notational density. You use $eta$ as the perturbation (minimal tremble) of the stratgies. That is $E(Gamma, eta)$ is the set of equilibria of the game $Gamma$ such that all strategies for all agents puts weight at least $eta$ on each action (pure strategy). We call an equilibrium proper if it can be approximated arbitrarily well by such restricted games.



                Your sequence $eta(t)$ is just $eta_1, eta_2, ...$, is a sequential relaxation of the perturbation of the game (in the sense of action weights). What is needed then is a corresponding sequence of equilibria $sbig(eta(t)big) in Ebig(Gamma, eta(t)big)$ that similarly converge to $s$. Think of it as approximation: if as a sequence of perturbations subsides to zero, we would wish that there is a sequence of equilibria of the perturbed games that converges (in the space of strategies) to the equilibrium of interest, $s$.



                In action, consider the following game.



                $$ beginarrayc hline
                & L & R \ hline
                T & 1,1 & 0,0 \ hline
                B & 0,0 & 0,0 \ hline
                endarray $$



                Clearly $B,R$ is an equilibrium. It is not, however, perfect. This is because $R$ is a best response for the column player if and only if the row player's strategy plays $B$ with probability one. In any tremble, row puts at most probability $1-eta$ on $B$, hence every equilibrium of every perturbed game with $eta > 0$ puts weight $eta$ on $R$ for column, hence as $etato 0$, any sequence of equilibria of perturbed games must converge toward $T,L$, the unique perfect equilibrium of this game.






                share|cite|improve this answer













                If I understand your question correctly, this is just notational density. You use $eta$ as the perturbation (minimal tremble) of the stratgies. That is $E(Gamma, eta)$ is the set of equilibria of the game $Gamma$ such that all strategies for all agents puts weight at least $eta$ on each action (pure strategy). We call an equilibrium proper if it can be approximated arbitrarily well by such restricted games.



                Your sequence $eta(t)$ is just $eta_1, eta_2, ...$, is a sequential relaxation of the perturbation of the game (in the sense of action weights). What is needed then is a corresponding sequence of equilibria $sbig(eta(t)big) in Ebig(Gamma, eta(t)big)$ that similarly converge to $s$. Think of it as approximation: if as a sequence of perturbations subsides to zero, we would wish that there is a sequence of equilibria of the perturbed games that converges (in the space of strategies) to the equilibrium of interest, $s$.



                In action, consider the following game.



                $$ beginarrayc hline
                & L & R \ hline
                T & 1,1 & 0,0 \ hline
                B & 0,0 & 0,0 \ hline
                endarray $$



                Clearly $B,R$ is an equilibrium. It is not, however, perfect. This is because $R$ is a best response for the column player if and only if the row player's strategy plays $B$ with probability one. In any tremble, row puts at most probability $1-eta$ on $B$, hence every equilibrium of every perturbed game with $eta > 0$ puts weight $eta$ on $R$ for column, hence as $etato 0$, any sequence of equilibria of perturbed games must converge toward $T,L$, the unique perfect equilibrium of this game.







                share|cite|improve this answer













                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer











                answered Aug 7 at 20:37









                Pete Caradonna

                1,3191620




                1,3191620






















                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded


























                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2875351%2fequivalent-definitions-of-perfect-equilibrium-of-a-normal-form-game%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest













































































                    這個網誌中的熱門文章

                    How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

                    Mutual Information Always Non-negative

                    Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?