
ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
14th Edition
ISBN: 9780190931919
Author: NEWNAN
Publisher: Oxford University Press
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Players A and B plan to divide an ice cream. Player A proposes a division ratio, B can either accept or reject it. If B accepts, the game ends and the ice cream is divided as A suggests. If B rejects, he can propose another ration, but then the ice cream melts to half the original size. A can also accept or reject. If A accepts, the ice cream is divided as B suggests. If A rejects, the ice cream melts and nothing is left. Assume that when acceptance and rejection bring the same outcome, A and B will choose to accept. Please find the equilibrium using backward induction.
Expert Solution

This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Step by stepSolved in 2 steps with 2 images

Knowledge Booster
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, economics and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.Similar questions
- Harry and Rebecca are working on a joint project. Harry is responsible for the hardware, his choices are between an Apple (A), IBM (B) or Cisco (C). Rebecca will be developing the software choosing between existing software development tools YouCreate (Y) or Zoho Creator (Z). Harry expects her to choose an appropriate software without consulting him. However, YouCreate is incompatible with IBM hardware, but works well with Apple products. Rebecca prefers YouCreate For Apple hardware, otherwise she prefers Zoho Creator. The problem is that Harry has been looking for hardware on his own and has not informed Rebecca which hardware he bought. If Harry bought a Cisco product, it comes with its own software development product. Payoffs are as follows: if Harry bought a Cisco product, they each receive $3, irrespective of the software development tool Rebecca has brought. If Harry bought an apple hardware and Rebecca a YouCreate tool then Rebecca receives $2, and Harry $4. If Rebecca has…arrow_forwardTwo friends are deciding where to go for dinner. There are three choices, which we label A, B, and C. Max prefers A to B to C. Sally prefers B to A to C. To decide which restaurant to go to, the friends adopt the following procedure: First, Max eliminates one of three choices. Then, Sally decides among the two remaining choices. Thus, Max has three strategies (eliminate A, eliminate B, and eliminate C). For each of those strategies, Sally has two choices (choose among the two remaining). a.Write down the extensive form (game tree) to represent this game. b.If Max acts non-strategically, and makes a decision in the first period to eliminate his least desirable choice, what will the final decision be? c.What is the subgame-perfect equilibrium of the above game? d. Does your answer in b. differ from your answer in c.? Explain why or why not. Only typed Answerarrow_forwardTwo discount stores (Megastore and Superstore) are interested in expanding their market share through advertising. The table below depicts the strategic outcomes (profits) of both stores with and without advertising. Superstore - Advertise Superstore - Don't Advertise Megastore - Advertise $95, $80 $305, $55 Megastore - Don't Advertise $65, $285 $165, $115 When the game does reach Nash Equilibrium, the payoffs for both stores will be a) Megastore $95 and Superstore $80 b) Megastore $305 and Superstore $55 c) Megastore $65 and Superstore $285 d) Megastore $165 and Superstore $115arrow_forward
- 8.8arrow_forwardPlayer 1 Cooperate (C) Defect (D) If the game has a dominant strategy, what is it? There is none. If the game has a Nash equilibrium in pure strategies, what is it? There is none. Cooperate (C) 3,3 8,0 Cooperate (C) is a dominant strategy for both players. Defect (D) is a dominant strategy for both players. Cooperate (C) is a dominant strategy for 1, and Defect (D) is a dominant strategy for 2. C, C is the only Nash equilibrium. D, D is the only Nash equilibrium. C, C and D, D are both Nash equilibria. Player 2 Defect (D) 0,8 1,1arrow_forwardJane is interested in buying a car from a used car dealer. Her maximum willingness to pay for thecar is 12 ($12,000). Bo, the dealer, is willing to sell the car as long as he receives at least 9($9,000). What is the Nash bargaining solution to this game?arrow_forward
- If a strategy profile is a Nash equilibrium, there is at least one player that could achieve higher payoffs by deviating.(a) True. (b) False.arrow_forwardMicrosoft and a smaller rival often have to select from one of two competing technologies, A and B. The rival always prefers to select the same technology as Microsoft (because compatibility is important), while Microsoft always wants to select a different technology from its rival. If the two companies select different technologies, Microsoft's payoff is 6 units of utility, while the small rival suffers a loss of utility of 2. If the two companies select the same technology, Microsoft suffers a loss of utility of 2 while the rival gains 2 units of utility. Using the given information, fill in the payoffs for each cell in the matrix, assuming that each company chooses its technology simultaneously. Microsoft Technology A Technology B Rival Technology A Rival: , Microsoft Rival: , Microsoft Technology B Rival: , Microsoft Rival: , Microsoft True or False: There is no equilibrium in pure strategies. True False Note:- Do not provide handwritten…arrow_forwardSuppose the following game is played infinite times in the future. Time discount is 0.90. What should be the value of x so that the equilibrium strategy is (Cooperate, Cooperate)? Player 2 Player 1 Cooperate Defect Cooperate (x, x) (2, 14) Defect (14, 2) (5, 5)arrow_forward
- The US and Canada have overfished North Atlantic cod stocks nearly to the point of extinction. Both countries wish to preserve the cod industry (and hence the cod stocks), so the two countries sign an agreement to limit fish hauls. Each country has two possible strategies: comply with the agreement (limit fishing) or renege on the agreement (overfish). Each country’s payoffs for different strategy combinations are given in the matrix below. The numbers in the cells represent utilities, and the payoff ordering is (US, Canada). QUESTIONS: 1.If this is a one-shot game (i.e., it is played once), do the players have a dominant strategy? If so, what is it? Briefly explain your answer. 2.What is the equilibrium of this game? Is it Pareto-optimal? How do you know?arrow_forwardA Nash Equilibrium is the equilibrium of a game in which; Both players get the largest payoff amount Both players get the best payoff independent of what the other players choices are Both player, with the knowledge of what the other players possible moves are, do not have incentive to deviate from their strategy There is incomplete information of the game and each player makes the move that is best for them and their payoff outcomearrow_forwardThere is a city, which looks like chopped isosceles triangle, as shown below. Citizens live uniformly distributed all over the city. Two ice-cream vendors, A and B, must independently set up stores in the city. Each citizen buys from the vendor closest to their location and when equidistant from both vendors they choose by coin toss. Each vendor’s aim is to maximize the expected number of customers. A choice of location by the two vendors is a Nash equilibrium if no vendor can do better by deviating unilaterally. Does this game have a Nash equilibrium? If so, describe it. If not, explain why notarrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- Principles of Economics (12th Edition)EconomicsISBN:9780134078779Author:Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. OsterPublisher:PEARSONEngineering Economy (17th Edition)EconomicsISBN:9780134870069Author:William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick KoellingPublisher:PEARSON
- Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781305585126Author:N. Gregory MankiwPublisher:Cengage LearningManagerial Economics: A Problem Solving ApproachEconomicsISBN:9781337106665Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike ShorPublisher:Cengage LearningManagerial Economics & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-...EconomicsISBN:9781259290619Author:Michael Baye, Jeff PrincePublisher:McGraw-Hill Education


Principles of Economics (12th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:9780134078779
Author:Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. Oster
Publisher:PEARSON

Engineering Economy (17th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:9780134870069
Author:William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick Koelling
Publisher:PEARSON

Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:9781305585126
Author:N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:Cengage Learning

Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach
Economics
ISBN:9781337106665
Author:Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor
Publisher:Cengage Learning

Managerial Economics & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-...
Economics
ISBN:9781259290619
Author:Michael Baye, Jeff Prince
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education