0 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Nisan · 2013-03-26T01:11:03.324Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
test please ignore
Replies from: Nisan↑ comment by Nisan · 2020-07-13T04:03:22.664Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Von Neumann and Morgenstern [LW · GW] also classify the two-player games, but they get only two games, up to equivalence. The reason is they assume the players get to negotiate beforehand. For them the only properties that matter are:
-
The maximin value , which represents each player's best alternative to negotiated agreement (BATNA).
-
The maximum total utility .
There are two cases:
-
The inessential case, . This includes the Abundant Commons with . No player has any incentive to negotiate, because the BATNA is Pareto-optimal.
-
The essential case, . This includes all other games in the OP.
It might seem strange that VNM consider Cake Eating to be equivalent to Prisoner's Dilemma. But in the VNM framework, Player 1 can threaten not to eat cake in order to extract a side payment from Player 2, just and this is the same as threatening to defect.
Replies from: Nisan