Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (20) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread
Author: LorenCobb Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1388  
Subject: Re: Nash Equilibrium Date: 2/20/2002 4:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
Euphoriant asked, "Can anyone explain the Nash Equilibrium to me in simple terms?"

I will be glad to try. If my answer is not clear, try reading the extended article on Game Theory in the Encyclopedia Britannica.

The Nash Equilibrium appears in the literature on two-person non-zero-sum games. "Non-zero-sum" means that the two players may be able to cooperate with each other so as to both receive a positive payoff. Zero-sum games are never cooperative, and are much easier to analyze. Nash found a way to predict the cooperative solution to a broad category of such games, given only six reasonable assumptions (the Nash Axioms) and knowledge of each player's utility function.

For example, suppose a very rich man and a poor man are told that they will receive a total of $10,000, if they can agree on how it is to be divided between them. If they cannot agree, then they receive nothing. As the two men negotiate, each can threaten the other with breaking off the negotiations. The Nash Equilibirum is, essentially, an agreement that maximizes the product of the two utilities. The exact amounts to be distributed to the two men depend, of course, on the utility functions for the two men.

The Nash Equilibrium is remarkable and mathematically interesting because Nash was able to show that his six axioms always give a unique solution. Nobody had imagined that such a result was possible, hence the fame of his theorem. The actual equilibrium itself is also sometimes surprising. In the above example, if the rich man has a utility function which is proportional to the dollar amount while the poor man has a utility function which is proportional to the square root of the dollar amount, then the poor man will end up with only one-third of the cash (see below for details). In effect, the poor man has less bargaining power because small amounts of money have much more utility for him than for the rich man.

Details of the calculation: we need to maximize g(x) = (ax)( b sqrt(10000-x) ). Differentiating g with respect to x and setting the result equal to zero, we obtain:

0 = ab sqrt(10000-x) - (1/2)abx / sqrt(10000-x).

This has the solution x = $6666.67 for the rich man and $3333.33 for the poor man. Notice that we get these exact figures even without knowing the proportionality constants a and b!

I hope this helps somewhat.
Loren
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (20) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Prev | Next | Next Thread

Announcements

Pencils of Promise - Back to School Drive
"Pencils of Promise works with communities across the globe to build schools and create programs that provide education opportunities for children."
Post of the Day:
Macro Economics

Russia Collapsing Again?
What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Community Home
Speak Your Mind, Start Your Blog, Rate Your Stocks

Community Team Fools - who are those TMF's?
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and "#1 Media Company to Work For" (BusinessInsider 2011)! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.
Advertisement