Logic and Interactive RAtionality Yearbook 2012
Z. Christoff,P. Galeazzi,Nina Gierasimczuk,A. Marcoci,S. Smets,J. Benthem,Chanjuan Liu,Fenrong Liu,J. Eijck,A. Baltag,J. Bergfeld,K. Kishida,J. Sack,S. Smets,S. Zhong,Branden Fitelson,R. Parikh,M. Kaneko,V. Hendricks,Peter Hawke,Tai-Wei Hu
2014-01-01
Abstract:The theories of Nash noncooperative solutions and of rationalizability intend to describe the same target problem of ex ante individual decision making, but they are distinctively different. We consider what their essential difference is by giving a unified approach and parallel derivations of their resulting outcomes. Our results show that the only difference lies in the use of quantifiers for each player’s predictions about the other’s possible decisions; the universal quantifier for the former and the existential quantifier for the latter. Based on this unified approach, we discuss the statuses of those theories from the three points of views: Johansen’s postulates, the free-will postulate vs. complete determinism, and prediction/decision criteria. One conclusion we reach is that the Nash theory is coherent with the free-will postulate, but we would meet various difficulties with the rationalizability theory.