Another “Complete Lattice” hit. Can I understand an aspect of Nash Equilibria now? I was never good at game theory but by tying this in to what I *do* know (mathematical morphology, and now topology and formal concept analysis as of today which are also complete lattices), MAYBE I can grasp a piece of this too. “The Set of Nash Equilibria of a Supermodular Game Is a Complete Lattice” “A Tarski-type fixed point theorem for an ascending correspondence on a complete lattice is proved and then applied to show that the set of Nash equilibria of a supermodular game is a complete lattice. ” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825684710517

Another “Complete Lattice” hit. Can I understand an aspect of Nash Equilibria now? I was never good at game theory but by tying this in to what I *do* know (mathematical morphology, and now topology and formal concept analysis as of today which are also complete lattices), MAYBE I can grasp a piece of this too.
“The Set of Nash Equilibria of a Supermodular Game Is a Complete Lattice”
 
“A Tarski-type fixed point theorem for an ascending correspondence on a complete lattice is proved and then applied to show that the set of Nash equilibria of a supermodular game is a complete lattice. “
 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899825684710517

——————–
 YES, now I can comprehend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_complements
====

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 + seven =

Leave a Reply