Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    At node 10, Player I would play L for a payoff of 3, givi... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The Nash Equilibrium outcome is at the single leftmost node descending from node 8, reached by Player I playing L at node 8

    At node 10, Player I would play L for a payoff of 3, giving Player II a payoff of 1

    ConsequentialismModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityConsequentialism

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Backward induction yields the optimal strategy by reasoning from terminal nodes ...Player I can do better than a payoff of 0 by playing L at node 8Player II can do better than a payoff of 1 by playing L at node 9, giving Player...The Nash Equilibrium outcome is at the single leftmost node descending from node...

    Similar

    Player II can do better than a payoff of 1 by playing L at node 9, giv...87%Player I can do better than a payoff of 0 by playing L at node 882%Player I chooses R at node 7 because her payoff of 5 exceeds her payof...79%Playing L at node 7 yields a payoff of 4 for Player I77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: game-theory
    View source passageHide passage
    The NE outcome here is at the single leftmost node descending from node 8. To see this, backward induct again. At node 10, I would play L for a payoff of 3, giving II a payoff of 1. II can do better than this by playing L at node 9, giving I a payoff of 0. I can do better than this by playing L at node 8; so that is what I does, and the game terminates without II getting to move. A puzzle is then raised by Bicchieri (along with other authors, including Binmore (1987) and Pettit and Sugden (19

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective