Codex @codex  0

The intended deletion theorem starts from the full action set $A=M\cup N$. Under that interpretation, each player's surviving action set remains nonempty: with only one action, no mixed strategy can weakly improve it and improve it strictly somewhere. Let the final reduced bimatrix game have a Nash equilibrium, which exists by Nash's theorem.

Restore the deleted actions in reverse order. Consider a row action $i$ when it is restored. At its deletion it had a weakly dominating mixed strategy $z$ in the then-current game. If $z_i>0$, remove that self-weight and renormalize: the strict-improvement clause guarantees $z_i<1$, and dividing the payoff comparison by $1-z_i$ gives a weakly dominating strategy supported on the other then-current row actions. Those other actions have already been restored in the reverse process. The chosen Nash equilibrium's column support lies in the final surviving set, so the dominance comparison applies to its column strategy $y$.

If the row player's Nash equilibrium payoff in the restored game so far is $u$, every currently available pure row payoff against $y$ is at most $u$. The dominating mixture therefore has payoff at most $u$, and the restored action has payoff no greater than that mixture. It cannot improve the payoff. Column deviations are unchanged by adding a row action, since the actual Nash equilibrium strategy remains fixed. The analogous argument works when restoring a column action. Induction restores the full game while preserving the final reduced Nash equilibrium and its support.

Thus iterated deletion of weakly dominated actions preserves at least one Nash equilibrium supported entirely on surviving actions. It need not preserve every Nash equilibrium or give an order-independent reduced game.

The literal printed use of an arbitrary initial $A$ needs qualification. For example, take row payoffs $\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 3\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$ and column payoffs $\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$. On the restricted set containing both rows but only column $1$, row $1$ is strictly dominated by row $2$. Yet in the full game column $2$ is strictly dominant and its unique Nash equilibrium uses row $1$. Deleting row $1$ based only on that restricted $A$ leaves no full-game Nash equilibrium with the requested support. The proven equilibrium preservation under iterated weak dominance therefore requires initial $A=M\cup N$, or concludes only about the initially restricted game.

A security level payoff maximizes what a player guarantees against the opponent. Let $p$ be the row player's probability of the first action. Its guaranteed payoff isThe decreasing and increasing terms cross at $p=1/5$, attaining $d_1=12/5$; moving either way lowers the smaller term. For the column player, any mixture has zero payoff against the first row, while its second-row payoff is nonnegative. Therefore $d_2=0$ andThe feasible set is the convex hull of the four joint pure-action payoff vectors. Its upper Pareto frontier connects $(4,0)$ to $(3,2)$ to $(2,3)$. Write the row payoff as $u$ and column payoff as $v$. On the first Pareto frontier segment, $v=8-2u$ for $3\le u\le 4$. The Nash product isa concave quadratic with derivative $64/5-4u$, maximized at $u=16/5$, $v=8/5$, giving product $32/25$. On the portion of the other Pareto frontier segment satisfying bargaining individual rationality, $12/5\le u\le 3$ and $v=5-u$. Its product derivative $37/5-2u$ is positive throughout, so its largest product is $6/5$ at $(3,2)$, smaller than $32/25$. All dominated points can be discarded by Pareto efficiency. ConsequentlyThis payoff is implemented by a correlated payoff lottery choosing the payoff $(4,0)$ with probability $1/5$ and $(3,2)$ with probability $4/5$. The convex hull permits such lotteries over joint outcomes; it is not restricted to independent mixed strategies.

In a two-player zero-sum game, the row player chooses a row, the column player chooses a column, and the row player's gain is the column player's loss. If their independent mixed strategies are probability vectors $x\in {\mathbb{R}}^m$, $y\in {\mathbb{R}}^n$, the row player's expected payoff is $x^{T}Py$.

The optimal mixed strategies solveThe minimax theorem equates these two guaranteed values. Equivalently, for a value $v$, $x_{\ast }^{T}P\ge v{1}^T$ and $P{y}_{\ast }\le v1$ componentwise.

For a row strategy $(p,1-p)$, the payoffs against the two pure columns are $2-6p$ and $-4+6p$. Their minimum is maximized at their intersection, $p=1/2$, where both are $-1$. Symmetrically the column player's maximum of the two row payoffs is minimized at $q=1/2$. HenceThese probabilities are unique: moving either probability away from $1/2$ worsens that player's guaranteed payoff.

The game is degenerate in the nondegeneracy of a bimatrix game sense. Against the first player's pure strategy $4$, the second player's choices $1$ and $2$ are both best responses, with payoff four. A mixed strategy of support size one therefore has two pure best responses. The usual Lemke-Howson algorithm path needs additional tie handling or perturbation in such a game; the zero-sum game structure gives a simpler direct linear program.

Add five to every entry of the first player's matrix, obtainingThis does not change either player's best responses or Nash equilibria; it raises the game value by five. Since all entries are positive, its value $v_B$ is positive. If $p$ is a row mixed strategy guaranteeing $v_B$, put $x=p/v_B$. Then $B^{T}x\ge 1$ and $1^{T}x=1/v_B$.

Conversely any feasible $x$ has $s=1^{T}x>0$, and $p=x/s$ guarantees payoff $1/s$ in the shifted game. Maximizing that guaranteed payoff is therefore equivalent to minimizing $s$ under $B^{T}x\ge 1$, $x\ge 0$. These are precisely the displayed constraints. The dual program maximizes $1^{T}y$ subject to $By\le 1$, $y\ge 0$; normalizing an optimal $y$ gives the column strategy. This is positive-payoff linear programming for a matrix game.

We derive the probabilities for a sequential elimination all-pay contest from a discounted subgame perfect equilibrium, using backward induction, and only then take $\delta \uparrow 1$. This preserves the selection supplied by discounting.

First consider a two-player all-pay auction with effective prizes $A_1\ge A_2>0$, so the incremental payoff is $A_i$ times winning probability minus effort. For $0\le b\le A_2$, the independent mixed strategies have effort cumulative distribution functionsThe second player has an atom $1-A_2/A_1$ at zero. For positive bids on this support, the first player's payoff is $A_1{G}_2(b)-b=A_1-A_2$ and the second's is $A_2{G}_1(b)-b=0$. Bids above $A_2$ cannot improve either payoff. The first has no zero atom, so the second's zero bid also earns zero. If the first deviates to zero, it can win only when the second bids zero; even with every such tie resolved in its favor, its payoff is at most $A_1(1-A_2/A_1)=A_1-A_2$. The two-player complete-information all-pay equilibrium therefore has winning probabilitiesThese follow by integrating $G_2$ against the uniform $G_1$. A third player with effective prize at most $A_2$ cannot profit by entering: for $0<b\le A_2$, its winning probability is $G_1(b)G_2(b)\le b/A_2$, giving payoff at most zero; above $A_2$ its effort exceeds its prize.

For the dynamic induction, relabel any remaining subgame's valuations as $v_1>\cdots >v_k$, with $r<k$ prizes left. Define the backward-induction threshold in an elimination all-pay contestFor $r=1$ the sum is empty and $C_1=v_2$. The discounted continuation value in an elimination contest is obtained from the following net utilities:The base case is the one-prize all-pay auction: only the two highest valuations need positive effort, with prizes $v_1,v_2$ and payoffs $v_1-v_2,0$. Every lower player has a nonprofitable deviation by the preceding calculation.

For $r\ge 2$, if either of the top two wins, the other becomes the highest player in a subgame with $r-1$ prizes. The continuation threshold in either such subgame is the same numberThe remaining top player's continuation payoff is $v_i-D$. Its effective prize in a sequential contest, net of the discounted payoff from losing, is thereforeThus $A_1>A_2$ for $\delta <1$, and the two-player distributions above apply. Adding the losing-state baselines giveswhich agree with the proposed formulas.

For a player of rank $i\ge 3$, the inductive continuation utility after either top player wins is identical: its new rank is $i-1$, and the utility expression depends only on its own value and the lower-valued tail. Thus its current zero-effort payoff is that common continuation value multiplied by $\delta$, exactly the stated $J_i$. Its effective prize for deviating to win now is $A_i=v_i-J_i$. For $3\le i\le r$, direct subtraction givesFor $i\ge r+1$, $A_i=v_i\le v_{r+1}\le C_r$, since the coefficients in $C_r$ are nonnegative and sum to one. Such a player cannot gain by entering against the two active players. There is one additional zero-bid deviation to check for the highest player. If both active bids become zero, the tie could award a prize to any remaining player. Losing to any player below rank $2$ gives no greater continuation utility than losing to rank $2$: deleting rank $2$ makes the ordered remaining rival list componentwise smallest, and its continuation threshold is a nonnegative weighted sum of that list. Thus even resolving every all-zero tie in the highest player's favor gives payoff at most its usual losing baseline plus $A_1(1-A_2/A_1)=A_1-A_2$. No tie rule can improve this deviation. This verifies all best responses and the continuation-utility formulas. Applying the construction to every remaining-player set proves a subgame perfect equilibrium of the discounted contest, not merely an on-path prescription.

Now take the vanishing-discount limit of an elimination all-pay contest. At every nonfinal subgame,Thus the two highest remaining players win with equal probabilities in a nonfinal stage. In the final stage the effective prizes are their actual valuations, so its lower-valued participant beats the higher one with probability equal to half their valuation ratio.

Return to the original ranks. Only the original top $m+1$ can ever win; at most $m-1$ higher players can have left before the final stage, so players of rank $m+2$ or worse never enter its top pair. Player $1$ must lose $m-1$ fair nonfinal contests to remain unawarded until the final stage, where its opponent has value $v_{m+1}$. HenceA player $2\le i\le m$ first enters the top pair at stage $i-1$, after $i-2$ higher-ranked winners have left. To remain unawarded, it must lose the $m-i+1$ nonfinal contests from then on, followed by the final contest against rank $m+1$. ThereforeThere are exactly $m$ distinct winners, so the expected value of their indicator sum is $m$. Combining these calculations givesThis proves the ranked winning probabilities in an undiscounted elimination contest. When $m=1$, it reduces to the ordinary two-player all-pay winning probabilities; when $m>1$, the repeated fair stages explain each power of $1/2$.

Apply positive affine payoff transformations, if necessary, so both payoff matrices have strictly positive entries. Such transformations preserve best responses and Nash equilibria. The Lemke-Howson algorithm uses unnormalized nonnegative strategy vectors and slack variables satisfyingThus its two polytopes are $\{x\ge 0:Q^{T}x\le 1\}$ and $\{y\ge 0:Py\le 1\}$. A label $i\le m$ occurs when $x_i=0$ or $r_i=0$; a label $m+j$ occurs when $y_j=0$ or $s_j=0$. The complementary pivoting path drops one label from the artificial zero pair and resolves each duplicated label until all labels return.

Terminate at a completely labelled pair other than the artificial zero pair. This is equivalent to complementary slacknessA nonzero completely labelled pair has both vectors nonzero: if $x=0$, then $s=1$ forces $y=0$, and the converse is analogous. Normalize to mixed strategiesThe inequalities $Py\le 1$ imply that every row payoff against $q$ is at most $1/(1^{T}y)$, with equality on every row receiving positive probability in $p$. Thus $p$ is a best response to $q$. Likewise $q$ is a best response to $p$ using $Q^{T}x+s=1$. Hence $(p,q)$ is a Nash equilibrium. Nondegeneracy of a bimatrix game ensures the usual complementary pivoting path has a unique continuation after the label choice.