Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

An Epistemic Rationale for Order-Independence

Contents:

Author Info

  • Michael Trost

    ()
    (Albert Ludwig University Freiburg, and Max Planck Institute of Economics, Jena)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The issue of the order-dependence of iterative deletion processes is well-known in the game theory community, and meanwhile conditions on the dominance concept underlying these processes have been detected which ensure order-independence (see e.g. the criteria of Gilboa et al., 1990 and Apt, 2011). While this kind of research deals with the technical issue, whether certain iterative deletion processes are order-independent, or not, our focus is on the normative issue, whether there are good reasons for employing order-independent iterative deletion processes on strategic games. We tackle this question from an epistemic perspective and attempt to figure out, whether order-independence contains some specific epistemic meaning. It turns out that, under fairly general preconditions on the choice rules underlying the iterative deletion processes, the order-independence of these deletion processes coincides with the epistemic characterization of their solutions by the common belief of choice-rule following behavior. The presumably most challenging precondition of this coincidence is the property of the independence of irrelevant acts. We also examine the consequences of two weakenings of this property on our epistemic motivation for order-independence. Although the coincidence mentioned above breaks down for both weakenings, still there exist interesting links between the order-independence of iterative deletion processes and the common belief of following the choice rules, on which these processes are based.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://pubdb.wiwi.uni-jena.de/pdf/wp_2012_010.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Paper provided by Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics in its series Jena Economic Research Papers with number 2012-010.

    as in new window
    Length:
    Date of creation: 20 Mar 2012
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2012-010

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Carl-Zeiss-Strasse 3, 07743 JENA
    Phone: +049 3641/ 9 43000
    Fax: +049 3641/ 9 43000
    Web page: http://www.jenecon.de
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: Iterative deletion process; order-independence; choice rule; epistemic game theory;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Ronald Fagin & Joseph Y. Halpern & Yoram Moses & Moshe Y. Vardi, 2003. "Reasoning About Knowledge," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262562006, December.
    2. Yi-Chun Chen & Ngo Van Long & Xiao Luo, 2007. "Iterated Strict Dominance in General Games," CIRANO Working Papers, CIRANO 2007s-03, CIRANO.
    3. D. B. Bernheim, 2010. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Levine's Working Paper Archive 661465000000000381, David K. Levine.
    4. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-50, July.
    5. Halpern, Joseph Y. & Pass, Rafael, 2012. "Iterated regret minimization: A new solution concept," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 184-207.
    6. Leslie McFarland-Marx & Jeroen M. Swinkels, 1993. "Order Independence for Iterated Weak Dominance," Discussion Papers, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science 1040, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    7. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, December.
    8. Krzysztof R. Apt & Jonathan A. Zvesper, 2010. "The Role of Monotonicity in the Epistemic Analysis of Strategic Games," Games, MDPI, Open Access Journal, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 1(4), pages 381-394, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jrp:jrpwrp:2012-010. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Markus Pasche).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.