Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Most references seem to state that Nash showed every symmetric game has a symmetric equilibrium point, but as far as I can tell from Nash's paper, he actually showed the much more general statement that every finite game has a symmetric equilibrium point.

I realise the references wouldn't be wrong, but why don't they state the more general result?

share|improve this question
    
As far as I remember, Nash's paper only talks about equilibrium, there is no reference to any symmetry whatsoever. Sorry if I am wrong. –  GH from MO Apr 14 '14 at 16:13
4  
To be clear, I'm referring to his PhD thesis, a copy of which is located at princeton.edu/mudd/news/faq/topics/… –  user17474 Apr 14 '14 at 16:15
    
Thanks. I did not read his Ph.D. thesis. –  GH from MO Apr 14 '14 at 16:16
1  
Hi Nick! Asymmetric finite games need not have symmetric equilibria -- the players need not even have e.g. the same number of strategies. Did you ask what you meant to ask? –  Noah Stein Apr 14 '14 at 16:43
1  
@GHfromMO There are two papers. Equilibrium Points in n-Person Games from 1950 only contained a proof that an equilibrium exists. Non-Cooperative Games from 1951 (essentially the published thesis) contains a proof that every game has a symmetric equilibrium. –  Michael Greinecker Apr 14 '14 at 17:01

1 Answer 1

Nash defined symmetries of finite games and proved existence of an equilibrium point that is invariant under all symmetries. He called such an equilibrium a symmetric equilibrium. For this to make a difference, a game needs to have nontrivial symmetries. Generic games don't.

A clearer source for his result would be the published version in the Annals of Mathematics. Theorem 2 there says: Any finite game has a symmetric equilibrium point.

share|improve this answer
    
> For this to make a difference, a game needs to have nontrivial symmetries. Generic games don't. >Theorem 2 there says: Any finite game has a symmetric equilibrium point. –  user17474 Apr 14 '14 at 20:52
    
Don't those two statements contradict each other? –  user17474 Apr 14 '14 at 20:54
2  
@NickHam No. A symmetric equilibrium is an equilibrium invariant under all symmetries of the game. In a generic game, the only such symmetry is the identity (there is a open dense, full measure set of games with no nontrivial symmetry). Nash did not define symmetric games. –  Michael Greinecker Apr 14 '14 at 20:58

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.