IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cda/wpaper/247.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Syntactic Approach to Rationality in Games

Author

Listed:
  • Giacomo Bonanno

    (Department of Economics, University of California Davis)

Abstract

We consider strategic-form games with ordinal payoffs and provide a syntactic analysis of common belief/knowledge of rationality, which we define axiomatically. Two axioms are considered. The first says that a player is irrational if she chooses a particular strategy while believing that another strategy is better. We show that common belief of this weak notion of rationality characterizes the iterated deletion of pure strategies that are strictly dominated by pure strategies. The second axiom says that a player is irrational if she chooses a particular strategy while believing that a different strategy is at least as good and she considers it possible that this alternative strategy is actually better than the chosen one. We show that common knowledge of this stronger notion of rationality characterizes the restriction to pure strategies of the iterated deletion procedure introduced by Stalnaker (1994).

Suggested Citation

  • Giacomo Bonanno, 2007. "A Syntactic Approach to Rationality in Games," Working Papers 247, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:cda:wpaper:247
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://repec.dss.ucdavis.edu/files/r7n8cTxKRAPX57QZKRG79CRP/07-1.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tan, Tommy Chin-Chiu & da Costa Werlang, Sergio Ribeiro, 1988. "The Bayesian foundations of solution concepts of games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 370-391, August.
    2. LISMONT, Luc & MONGIN, Philippe, 1994. "On the Logic of Common Belief and Common Knowledge," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1994005, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    3. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Bonanno, Giacomo, 1999. "Recent results on belief, knowledge and the epistemic foundations of game theory," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 149-225, June.
    4. Bernheim, B Douglas, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1007-1028, July.
    5. Giacomo Bonanno & Klaus Nehring, 1998. "On Stalnaker's Notion of Strong Rationalizability and Nash Equilibrium in Perfect Information Games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 291-295, December.
    6. Adam Brandenburger & Eddie Dekel, 2014. "Rationalizability and Correlated Equilibria," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 3, pages 43-57, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    7. Pearce, David G, 1984. "Rationalizable Strategic Behavior and the Problem of Perfection," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(4), pages 1029-1050, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Giacomo Bonanno & Cédric Dégremont, 2013. "Logic and Game Theory," Working Papers 24, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    2. Giacomo Bonanno & Cédric Dégremont, 2013. "Logic and Game Theory," Working Papers 134, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giacomo Bonanno & Elias Tsakas, 2017. "Qualitative analysis of common belief of rationality in strategic-form games," Working Papers 175, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    2. Giacomo Bonanno & Elias Tsakas, 2017. "Qualitative analysis of common belief of rationality in strategic-form games," Working Papers 181, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    3. Guarino, Pierfrancesco & Ziegler, Gabriel, 2022. "Optimism and pessimism in strategic interactions under ignorance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 559-585.
    4. Michael Trost, 2013. "Epistemic characterizations of iterated deletion of inferior strategy profiles in preference-based type spaces," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 42(3), pages 755-776, August.
    5. Zambrano, Eduardo, 2008. "Epistemic conditions for rationalizability," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 395-405, May.
    6. Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2021. "Iterated dominance revisited," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(2), pages 377-421, September.
    7. Seel, Christian & Tsakas, Elias, 2017. "Rationalizability and Nash equilibria in guessing games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 75-88.
    8. Joseph Y. Halpern & Rafael Pass, 2018. "Game theory with translucent players," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(3), pages 949-976, September.
    9. Amanda Friedenberg, 2006. "Can Hidden Variables Explain Correlation? (joint with Adam Brandenburger)," Theory workshop papers 815595000000000005, UCLA Department of Economics.
    10. Hillas, John & Samet, Dov, 2022. "Non-Bayesian correlated equilibrium as an expression of non-Bayesian rationality," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 1-15.
    11. Adam Brandenburger & Amanda Friedenberg, 2014. "Intrinsic Correlation in Games," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 4, pages 59-111, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    12. Dekel, Eddie & Siniscalchi, Marciano, 2015. "Epistemic Game Theory," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    13. Ben-Porath, Elchanan & Heifetz, Aviad, 2011. "Common knowledge of rationality and market clearing in economies with asymmetric information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(6), pages 2608-2626.
    14. Tsakas, E., 2012. "Pairwise mutual knowledge and correlated rationalizability," Research Memorandum 031, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    15. Jara-Moroni, Pedro, 2012. "Rationalizability in games with a continuum of players," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 668-684.
    16. Frank Heinemann, 1997. "Rationalizable expectations and sunspot equilibria in an overlapping-generations economy," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 65(3), pages 257-277, October.
    17. Shyam NMI Sunder, 2001. "Knowing What Others Know: Common Knowledge, Accounting, and Capital Markets," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm213, Yale School of Management.
    18. Tsakas, Elias, 2013. "Pairwise epistemic conditions for correlated rationalizability," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 379-384.
    19. Yi-Chun Chen & Xiao Luo & Chen Qu, 2016. "Rationalizability in general situations," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 61(1), pages 147-167, January.
    20. Xiao Luo, 2016. "Rational beliefs in rationalizability," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 189-198, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cda:wpaper:247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Letters and Science IT Services Unit (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/educdus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.