[EM] Alex: Nash equilibrium
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Mon Nov 22 07:34:17 PST 2004
I don't like Mike's definition "No set of voters..." because if you define
the players in the game too loosely...
I wasn't aware that a definition of "players in the game" appeared in my
definition of (voting) Nash equilibrium, as we'd been using that term here.
then not only will there be no Nash equilibrium
But there demonstrably are (voting) Nash equilibria, as I defined the term.
, but the game itself will be ill-defined and there really won't be much to
About what? I didn't define a game, either ill-defined or well-defined.
What should there be to say, other than the definiiton, and statements about
what meets the definition and what doesn't.
I and others felt that it was useful to speak of outcomes that no one
could improve on, individually or collectively.
If "group strategy equilibrium" is in wide use, to mean exactly what we've
been calling a voting Nash equilibrium, then I'm not saying that I object to
changing to that other term. But saying that there's another word for it
isn't the same as saying that the term is incorrect.
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
More information about the Election-Methods