MIT14_126S10_lec09

# MIT14_126S10_lec09 - 14.126 Lecture Notes on...

This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: 14.126 Lecture Notes on Rationalizability Muhamet Yildiz April 9, 2010 When we de f ne a game we implicitly assume that the structure (i.e. the set of play- ers, their strategy sets and the fact that they try to maximize the expected value of the von-Neumann and Morgenstern utility functions) described by the game is common knowledge. The exact implications of this implicit assumption is captured by rational- izability. In this lecture, I will formally demonstrate this fact. I will further extend rationalizability to incomplete information games. Of course, every incomplete-information game can be represented as a complete information game, and the rationalizability is already de f ned for the latter game. That solution concept is called ex-ante rationalizability . It turns out that that notion is more restrictive and im- poses some stronger assumptions than what is intended in incomplete information game. To capture the exact implications of the assumptions in the incomplete-information game, I will introduce another solution concept, called interim correlated rationalizabil- ity , which is related to the rationalizability applied to the interim representation of the game, in which types are considered as players. Along the way, I will introduce a formulation of the Bayesian games that will be used in the remainder of the course. 1 Rationalizability in Complete-Information Games Consider a complete-information game ( N, S, u ) , where N is the set of players, with generic elements i, j ∈ N , S = Q i ∈ N S i is the set of strategy pro f les, and u : S R N → is the pro f le of payo f functions u i : S R . A game ( N, S, u ) is said to be f nite if N → and S are f nite. Implicit in the de f nition of the game game that player i maximizes 1 the expected value of u i with respect to a belief about the other players’ strategies. I will next formalize this idea. 1.1 Belief, Rationality, and Dominance De f nition 1 For any player i , a (correlated) belief of i about the other players’ strate- Q gies is a probability distribution μ on S − i = j = i S j . − i 6 De f nition 2 The expected payo f from a strategy s i against a belief μ − i is Z u i ¡ s i , μ − i ¢ = E μ i [ u i ( s i , s − i )] ≡ u i ( s i , s − i ) dμ − i ( s − i ) ¡ ¢ P Note that in a f nite game u i s i , μ − i = s − i ∈ S − i u i ( s i , s − i ) μ − i ( s − i ) . De f nition 3 For any player i , a strategy s ∗ i is a best response to a belief μ − i if and only if u i ( s ∗ i , μ − i ) ≥ u i ( s i , μ − i ) ( ∀ s i ∈ S i ) . Here I use the notion of a weak best reply , requiring that there is no other strategy that yields a strictly higher payo f against the belief. A notion of strict best reply would require that s ∗ yields a strictly higher expected payo f than any other strategy....
View Full Document

## This note was uploaded on 11/28/2011 for the course ECONOMICS - taught by Professor Muhammadyildiz during the Spring '05 term at University of Massachusetts Boston.

### Page1 / 27

MIT14_126S10_lec09 - 14.126 Lecture Notes on...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document
Ask a homework question - tutors are online