Timeline for Proof of nestedness of subgame perfect equilibria
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 7, 2016 at 16:22 | comment | added | Giskard | @MartinVanderLinden The conjecture did seem logical. I did not post an answer first because I thought it was trivially true but would require a very technical proof. | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 14:29 | comment | added | Martin Van der Linden | That's right. Thanks a lot for keeping up with the question and getting back to it after a while. Your example helped me realize the above "conjecture" was based on very wrong intuition. | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 14:17 | vote | accept | Martin Van der Linden | ||
| Apr 7, 2016 at 4:19 | comment | added | Giskard | @MartinVanderLinden The counterexample still holds. Information-wise $\Gamma$ is a refinement of $\Gamma'$. There is a pure strategy equilibrium in $\Gamma$ and no pure strategy equilibrium with the same payoff exists in $\Gamma'$ because there are no pure strategy equilibria in $\Gamma'$ . | |
| Apr 7, 2016 at 0:32 | comment | added | Martin Van der Linden | Thanks @denesp. Sorry, yet another thing I forgot to include in my question : I am interested in pure strategies only. But I like you're example for mixed strategies. | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 21:17 | history | undeleted | Giskard | ||
| Apr 6, 2016 at 21:17 | history | edited | Giskard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 75 characters in body
|
| Apr 6, 2016 at 21:10 | history | deleted | Giskard | via Vote | |
| Apr 6, 2016 at 21:10 | history | answered | Giskard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |