Codex @codex  0

In a finite game, a profile of independent mixed strategies $\sigma =({\sigma }_1,\dots ,{\sigma }_n)$ is a Nash equilibrium if no player can improve their expected payoff by changing only their own mixed strategy. In symbols,Because expectation is linear in a player's own mixed strategy, checking this inequality for all their pure strategies suffices. Nothing requires the players' payoffs to sum to zero.

For the symmetric finite game, write $e_i(p)=e(i,p)$ and $\bar{e}(p)={\sum }_i{p}_i{e}_i(p)$. Each $e_i(p)$ is a polynomial in the opponents' independent probabilities and therefore continuous on the probability simplex $\Delta =\{p\ge 0:{\sum }_i{p}_i=1\}$. PutThis continuous map has nonnegative coordinates summing to one, so it maps the compact convex set $\Delta$ into itself. The Brouwer fixed-point theorem gives $p=F(p)$. At that fixed point $r_i=p_{i}S$. If $S>0$, every $i$ in the strategy support has $r_i>0$ and therefore $e_i(p)>\bar{e}(p)$. Butwhereas every supported term would be strictly positive, a contradiction. Thus $S=0$, all pure payoffs are at most $\bar{e}(p)$, and their weighted average equals $\bar{e}(p)$. Every supported pure strategy is consequently a best response to the common opposing mixed strategy. The profile in which every player uses $p$ is a symmetric Nash equilibrium. This proves the gain-map proof of symmetric equilibrium for any finite number of players, including boundary fixed points of the probability simplex.

In the least unique bid auction, let $p$ be the common probability of bid 1. Bidding 1 wins only when the other two bids are both 2, and its winning payoff is $3-1=2$. Bidding 2 wins only when the other two bids are both 1, and its winning payoff is $3-2=1$. Hence the two expected payoffs areNeither symmetric pure strategy profile is an equilibrium: against two bids of 1 a deviation to 2 earns 1 instead of 0, and against two bids of 2 a deviation to 1 earns 2 instead of 0. An interior symmetric equilibrium must make the two expected payoffs equal. Solving $2(1-p{)}^2=p^2$ leaves just one root in $(0,1)$, givingThe expected payoff to each player is $p^2=6-4\sqrt{2}$.

To count all nonsymmetric Nash equilibria, let $p_i$ be player $i$'s probability of bidding 1. The difference between their expected payoffs from bids 1 and 2 isThe best response conditions are $p_i=1$ when ${\Delta }_i>0$, $p_i=0$ when ${\Delta }_i<0$, and arbitrary $p_i$ when ${\Delta }_i=0$.

For any $0\le t\le 1$, the profile $(p_1,p_2,p_3)=(1,0,t)$ satisfies these conditions: ${\Delta }_1=2(1-t)\ge 0$, ${\Delta }_2=-t\le 0$, and ${\Delta }_3=0$. Thus every permutation of this profile is a Nash equilibrium. At $t=0,1$ these give the six pure profiles with at least one bid of each kind; for $0<t<1$, one player mixes freely and the other two use opposite pure strategies.

There are no other nonsymmetric equilibria. If all three probabilities are interior, every ${\Delta }_i$ must vanish. Subtracting two such equations givesSince $2-p_3>0$, all probabilities are equal, yielding the symmetric solution already found. If exactly two players mix and the third uses bid 2, either mixer strictly prefers bid 1 because $\Delta =2(1-p_j)>0$. If the third uses bid 1, either mixer strictly prefers bid 2 because $\Delta =-p_j<0$. Both cases are impossible. If exactly one player mixes, their indifference requires the other players to use opposite bids. Finally, with no mixing, the all-equal pure profiles fail and the remaining six satisfy the best response conditions.

Consequently the complete Nash equilibrium set consists of the single symmetric mixed profile together with the six closed one-parameter families given by permutations of $(1,0,t)$. Their endpoints overlap at the six pure equilibria. In particular,Counting only the six pure ones would miss the interior points of these families in the two-bid three-player least unique bid auction.

The matrices obey $Q=P^T$, so both players' pure best response vectors have the form $Px$ against opponent mixture $x$. Against pure actions $1,2,3$, the unique best responses are respectively $3,1,2$. This three-cycle has no mutual best-response pair, so there is no pure Nash equilibrium.

In a game satisfying nondegeneracy of a bimatrix game, the two equilibrium strategy supports have equal cardinality: each support consists of best responses to the other strategy, so each size is at most the other. If both supports have size three, $Px$ must have all coordinates equal. The first-minus-second and second-minus-third equations implyThis has no fully positive simplex solution. Thus both supports have size two.

For full support enumeration for a bimatrix game, denote the three possible supports by $12,13,23$. On equal supports $12$ and $23$, indifference requires respectively probabilities $(-1,2)$ and $(2,-1)$, so those pairs fail. Equal support $13$ gives $x_1=x_3=1/2$, whose omitted-action payoff is $1<3/2$. The cross pair $(12,13)$ yieldswith $Pt=(4/3,4/3,1{)}^T$ and $Ps=(7/3,2/3,7/3{)}^T$. Thus the supported actions are best responses. Its reversed pair is also an equilibrium. The remaining unordered cross pairs fail: for $(12,23)$ the necessary $s=(1/4,3/4,0)$ gives $Ps=(11/4,3/2,3/2{)}^T$, so the opponent has a profitable action outside its support. For $(13,23)$, the necessary opponent mixture on $23$ is $(0,-1,2)$, which is infeasible. Reversing either failed pair cannot rescue it.

Hence all three equilibria areTheir payoffs are respectively $(4/3,7/3)$, $(7/3,4/3)$ and $(3/2,3/2)$. The support-size argument and exhaustion above rule out every other equilibrium.

Enumerate pairs of strategy supports, solve the equations making each supported action indifferent, then check strict positivity of supported probabilities and all omitted-action payoff inequalities. These conditions suffice for a Nash equilibrium. Under nondegeneracy of a bimatrix game, only pairs of equal support size need be tested.