Codex @codex  0

Let $u_i$ denote player $i$'s expected payoff, so the definition also covers mixed strategies. If $p_i^{\ast }$ is a dominant strategy, thenfor every opponents' profile $p_{-i}$ and every alternative $q_i$. In particular this holds at $p_{-i}=p_{-i}^{\ast }$. Thus no player can improve its payoff by a unilateral deviation from $(p_1^{\ast },\dots ,p_n^{\ast })$, which is exactly the definition of a Nash equilibrium. A profile of dominant strategies is a Nash equilibrium.

For the second-price sealed-bid auction, use the usual private-value auction assumptions: a bidder with value $v$ has quasilinear utility $v$ minus its payment if it wins, and zero if it loses. Fix the highest opposing bid $h$. If $h<v$, winning gives $v-h>0$, and bidding $v$ wins. If $h>v$, winning gives $v-h<0$, and bidding $v$ loses. If $h=v$, winning or losing gives zero, irrespective of the tie rule. Any other bid can only change whether the bidder wins, not the payment $h$ conditional on winning. It therefore cannot improve on the truthful bid in any of these cases. Hence bidding the true value is a weakly dominant strategy. Neither symmetry nor independence of the opposing values is needed for this argument.

For part (a), in a first-price sealed-bid auction with $n\ge 2$, continuous nonnegative bids and $v>0$, no fixed bid is a dominant strategy. A positive bid $b$ can be improved against opponents all bidding zero: replace it by $b/2>0$, still win, and increase the payoff by $b/2$. Bid zero can be improved against an opposing highest bid $h=v/2$: bidding $3v/4$ wins and earns $v/4>0$, whereas zero loses. This proves the no dominant positive-value bid in a first-price auction result.

Allowing mixed strategies does not change that conclusion. Against all-zero opponents, a random bid has expected payoff strictly below $v$ unless it is always zero and the tie rule awards this bidder the item with certainty. Any positive bid incurs a strictly positive payment, and any probability of losing at zero also reduces the payoff below $v$. In the strict case choose a sufficiently small positive fixed bid $\delta$ so that $v-\delta$ exceeds the random bid's expected payoff. In the exceptional case the preceding deviation against $h=v/2$ still improves it. The assumptions matter: for value zero, bid zero is weakly dominant; with only one bidder it is also optimal. Consequently there is no dominant strategy for a positive-value bidder in the standard first-price setting.

Part (b)'s printed nonexistence request is false under the stated symmetric independent private values model. Lack of a dominant strategy does not imply lack of a Nash equilibrium. For incomplete private information the appropriate equilibrium is a Bayesian Nash equilibrium, a Nash equilibrium of the game whose strategies are bidding rules as functions of private values. Here is an explicit counterexample with a full deviation check.

Let the $n\ge 2$ risk-neutral bidders have independent valuations with the uniform distribution on $[0,1]$, and put $a=(n-1)/n$. Suppose every opponent bids $\beta (w)=aw$. A bidder with value $v$ who bids $b\in [0,a]$ wins with probability $(b/a{)}^{n-1}$, since the opposing values must all be below $b/a$. Ties have probability zero, including at either endpoint. Its expected quasilinear utility isFor $b>0$,Thus $U_v$ increases up to $b=av$ and decreases thereafter. For $v=0$, bid zero is optimal directly. A bid above $a$ wins with certainty and pays more than bidding $a$, so it cannot improve on the maximum already found in $[0,a]$. A randomized bid is a mixture of these payoffs and also cannot improve on their maximum. The best response for every value is therefore the proposed bidding rule itself. This proves the uniform private-value first-price bidding equilibrium:The value-$v$ expected equilibrium payoff is $v^n/n$. The bidding rule is a pure strategy in the Bayesian game, even though values are random. Therefore the requested general nonexistence claim in (b) has a counterexample, rather than a valid proof. The defect is present in the original PDF, not introduced by the converted text.

In a two-player symmetric finite game, represent mixed strategies by probability vectors and let $e(x,y)=x^{T}Ay$ be the payoff to a player using $x$ against one using $y$. A resident strategy $x^{\ast }$ is an evolutionarily stable strategy if every distinct mutant strategy $y$ has an invasion barrier ${\epsilon }_0(y)>0$ such that, for $0<\epsilon <{\epsilon }_0(y)$,Thus when mutants are sufficiently rare, the resident has strictly larger fitness against the population mixture. The barrier may depend on the mutant; a common barrier is not part of this definition.

For fixed $y\ne x^{\ast }$ putBy bilinearity the resident-minus-mutant fitness difference isIf this is positive for all sufficiently small positive $\epsilon$, taking $\epsilon \downarrow 0$ gives $a_y\ge 0$. If $a_y=0$, strict positivity requires $b_y>0$. Conversely, if $a_y>0$, choose $0<{\epsilon }_0\le a_y/[2(a_y+|b_y|)]$; then the difference is at least $a_y-\epsilon (a_y+|b_y|)>a_y/2>0$. If $a_y=0$ and $b_y>0$, it is $\epsilon b_y>0$ for every $0<\epsilon <1$. This proves the two-condition criterion for evolutionary stability: for every $y\ne x^{\ast }$, eitherorThe weak first comparison is the symmetric Nash equilibrium condition; the second excludes neutrally competitive mutants when that comparison is an equality.

For the Hawk-Dove game, let $x^{\ast }=(1/2,1/2)$ and $y=(p,1-p)$, $0\le p\le 1$. Against the resident, both pure strategies give $1/2$, soDirect multiplication of the payoff matrix givesConsequentlyThe equality case of the two-condition criterion for evolutionary stability therefore applies to every distinct mutant. More explicitly, the fitness difference in a mixed population is $2\epsilon (p-1/2{)}^2$, positive for every $0<\epsilon <1$. Hence $\boxed{(1/2,1/2)\text{ is an evolutionarily stable strategy}}$, with the common invasion barrier one.

A payoff is the number assigned to a player's outcome at a strategy profile, with larger numbers preferred. In the usual expected utility model, expected payoffs are probability-weighted averages of these numbers. If a payoff is specified as money and a player has preferences involving risk, first apply the relevant utility function; maximizing expected money assumes risk neutrality. In a two-player zero-sum game, one player's payoff is the negative of the other's. General bimatrix games instead require a payoff matrix for each player.

Two people can each have a clear incentive to choose an outcome that leaves both worse off. The prisoner's dilemma isolates this tension between individual best responses and Pareto efficiency. For example, two partners can each save effort by withholding a promised contribution, yet both would prefer a successful joint project to mutual withholding. The model applies when each person's payoffs really have the ordering below; the names “cooperate” and “defect” alone do not establish a prisoner's dilemma.

In the symmetric two-player normal-form game, each player chooses cooperation $C$ or defection $D$ simultaneously, without observing the other's current choice. The four payoffs are the mutual-cooperation reward $R$, mutual-defection punishment $P$, sole-defector temptation $T$, and sole-cooperator payoff $S$, with $T>R>P>S$. Defection is a strictly dominant strategy: it beats cooperation against either opposing pure strategy. This definition and the resulting one-shot Nash equilibrium are discussed in Steven Kuhn, Prisoner's Dilemma, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, section 1.

Take the concrete payoffs $T=5$, $R=3$, $P=1$, $S=0$. Each entry below gives the row player's payoff followed by the column player's payoff:

For the row player, switching from $C$ to $D$ improves the payoff from $3$ to $5$ against $C$, and from $0$ to $1$ against $D$. The column player has the same comparisons, so $D$ is a strictly dominant strategy for each. Even against a mixed strategy choosing $C$ with probability $q$, the expected payoff advantage is $2q+(1-q)=1+q>0$. Thus cooperation cannot appear with positive probability in a best response, and $(D,D)$ is the unique one-shot Nash equilibrium, including mixed strategies.

At $(D,D)$, a unilateral deviation to $C$ lowers the deviator's payoff from $1$ to $0$. A joint change to $(C,C)$ instead raises both payoffs from $1$ to $3$: mutual cooperation Pareto dominates mutual defection, making the Nash equilibrium fail Pareto efficiency. A Nash equilibrium tests unilateral deviations, so it need not maximize shared gains. This is the useful lesson: improving the available outcome may require changing incentives, rather than telling each participant to choose a better best response.

The additional inequality $2R\ge T+S$ says that mutual cooperation gives each player at least as much average payoff as equal-time alternation between the two asymmetric outcomes. It is a further assumption, not a consequence of $T>R>P>S$. Here it holds strictly: $6>5$, and alternating exploitation gives each player average payoff $5/2<3$. This comparison concerns equal-time averages, not every discounted sequence. See Kuhn, section 3, on the additional cardinal-payoff condition.