I was finally starting to understand signaling games and the freaking Beer-Quiche but it seems the lectures end here!!! I will be really looking forward for the next one, hopefully it will be online before finals!
So is a weak sequential equilibrium an equilibrium that simply doesn't occur realistically? I haven't found a proper explanation of it, I understand that it makes sense via bayesian updating and is sequentially rational, but the "weak" in the term then originates from the fact that it will not be played with positive probability?
If we start off with a strict belief but an off-the-path belief is equally good as our primary path then does the other belief also stand as its own equilibrium? For example if the game instead have multiple branches that are reduced to the same expected payoff would it be that multiple branches forms an equilibrium of a mixed strategy or would it be its own equilibrium off the path?
Every information set that has zero probability of being reached is off the path. So based on what you wrote, it sounds like everything you are describing is indeed off the path.
Which book do you recommend to read with your vids. (I'm totally a newbie, but I follow your vids since time. Plus I want to learn from scratch, I'm totally unrelated with mathematics, except some school learning of maths.) Thank you.
@@Gametheory101 Thank you for sharing those links! I've been meaning to get your book, and I'm also curious if you had any involvement with (or new the author of) the second book.
Hello Dr. Spaniel, I have been watching your Logic 101 videos the last few days and found them very helpful. Could you PLEASE help me with these 2 problems using conditional proofs which I have been trying so hard for the last 3 days. Thank you so much. 1. F -> W 1. ~V -> ~S 2. F -> (O&B) 2. ~V -> (~I v ~P) 3. S ~B // W ~S 3. ~I -> ~S // ~P -> ~S
Hey I know I'm a bit late to the party, and I haven't watched William's Logic 101 videos (though I plan to), but I think those problems might not be valid. In other words, I don't think that the conclusions follow logically from the premises. For instance, let's assume that W is true. Just knowing that F -> W and W is true, F could be either true or false, since false -> true and true -> true are both true statements. Since we can't conclude anything about F, then ultimately we can't conclude anything about O, B or S either. For the second problem, if we assume ~P is true then (~I v ~P) is also true, and if we assume that ~V is true as well, then we can conclude ~S is true. However, if we assume that ~V is false, then ~S can be false. To recap, both conclusions don't necessarily follow logically from the premises. For the first problem, we can have W be true and ~S be false, and for the second, we can have ~P be true and ~S be false. Was there more to these problems, or did you possibly write them down wrong? Either way, I hope that you have been doing well!
So basically the gist of it is that, in order to properly answers the question, you need to discuss the off the equilibrium path decisions and to show that by deviating by the proposed NE solution, no parties can profitably deviate. HOWEVER, we run into a problem here, if both types of player choose to hide, then as the 2nd player you cannot gain any new information because you belong to another information set.
I was finally starting to understand signaling games and the freaking Beer-Quiche but it seems the lectures end here!!! I will be really looking forward for the next one, hopefully it will be online before finals!
It's October 2021 and there's now four more videos after this one in the playlist. Also, how did your final go?
😮😮😮😮😮😮😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😮😮😢😮😮😮😮😮😮😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😮😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😢😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😮😅😅😅😅😅😮😮😮😅😢😅😅😮😮😮😅😮😢😢😮😮😢😅😮😮😮😢😅😅😅😮😮😮😮😮😢😅😮😅😮😮😅😮😢😅😅😅😅😢😅😮😮😢😅😅😅😅😢😮😅😮😢😅😮😢😮😅😢😢😮😢😮😅😅😮😮😮😮😮😢😅😅😅😅😅😅😅😅hqp😅😅😅😅😅😅
Awesome series! So clear and concise!
So is a weak sequential equilibrium an equilibrium that simply doesn't occur realistically?
I haven't found a proper explanation of it, I understand that it makes sense via bayesian updating and is sequentially rational, but the "weak" in the term then originates from the fact that it will not be played with positive probability?
Is this the same as the intuitive criterion?
If we start off with a strict belief but an off-the-path belief is equally good as our primary path then does the other belief also stand as its own equilibrium? For example if the game instead have multiple branches that are reduced to the same expected payoff would it be that multiple branches forms an equilibrium of a mixed strategy or would it be its own equilibrium off the path?
Every information set that has zero probability of being reached is off the path. So based on what you wrote, it sounds like everything you are describing is indeed off the path.
@@Gametheory101 Thank you!
Which book do you recommend to read with your vids. (I'm totally a newbie, but I follow your vids since time. Plus I want to learn from scratch, I'm totally unrelated with mathematics, except some school learning of maths.)
Thank you.
Start with Game Theory 101 (the book) then maybe switch to Game Theory Evolving when you want to get to the complicated stuff.
William Spaniel may I have links to both books
@@swapnilkamble111 GT101: amzn.to/2Uw3iN0 GT Evolving: amzn.to/2QIILWt
William Spaniel Thanks a lot !
@@Gametheory101 Thank you for sharing those links! I've been meaning to get your book, and I'm also curious if you had any involvement with (or new the author of) the second book.
Is there any follow-up video for the off-the-path? Cheers!
It's October 2021 and there's now four more videos after this one in the playlist. Were you studying for a class, and if so, how did it go?
Awesome, a new vid!
Hello Dr. Spaniel, I have been watching your Logic 101 videos the last few days and found them very helpful. Could you PLEASE help me with these 2 problems using conditional proofs which I have been trying so hard for the last 3 days. Thank you so much.
1. F -> W 1. ~V -> ~S
2. F -> (O&B) 2. ~V -> (~I v ~P)
3. S ~B // W ~S 3. ~I -> ~S // ~P -> ~S
Hey I know I'm a bit late to the party, and I haven't watched William's Logic 101 videos (though I plan to), but I think those problems might not be valid. In other words, I don't think that the conclusions follow logically from the premises.
For instance, let's assume that W is true. Just knowing that F -> W and W is true, F could be either true or false, since false -> true and true -> true are both true statements. Since we can't conclude anything about F, then ultimately we can't conclude anything about O, B or S either.
For the second problem, if we assume ~P is true then (~I v ~P) is also true, and if we assume that ~V is true as well, then we can conclude ~S is true. However, if we assume that ~V is false, then ~S can be false.
To recap, both conclusions don't necessarily follow logically from the premises. For the first problem, we can have W be true and ~S be false, and for the second, we can have ~P be true and ~S be false. Was there more to these problems, or did you possibly write them down wrong? Either way, I hope that you have been doing well!
This is becoming like a second religion to me.
I feel the same way, though I believe that many people would consider our religion to be...off-the-path? 😎
Man, it seems like player 1 always revealing himself as a strategy is rather...path-etic? 😎
What is this?? I don’t get anything... 😬. Some one educate me 🙏🏼💭🙌🏼
So basically the gist of it is that, in order to properly answers the question, you need to discuss the off the equilibrium path decisions and to show that by deviating by the proposed NE solution, no parties can profitably deviate. HOWEVER, we run into a problem here, if both types of player choose to hide, then as the 2nd player you cannot gain any new information because you belong to another information set.
perfect
Im early
I hope not so early that TH-cam was still showing a washed-out version because the video hadn't completely processed yet!
@@Gametheory101 😂
@@zhouyiting123 Since it is now October 2021, does that make me late? 😎
@@PunmasterSTP hahahaha it is never too late to learn about game theory 😎
@@zhouyiting123 I completely agree!