Timeline for Did Nash prove that every game or every symmetric game has a symmetric equilibrium?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 14, 2014 at 20:58 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | @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. | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 20:54 | comment | added | user17474 | Don't those two statements contradict each other? | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 20:52 | comment | added | user17474 | > 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. | |
| Apr 14, 2014 at 17:10 | history | edited | Michael Greinecker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 4 characters in body
|
| Apr 14, 2014 at 16:55 | history | answered | Michael Greinecker | CC BY-SA 3.0 |