# Difference: NormalFormErrata (1 vs. 7)

#### Revision 72016-07-16 - PetrPoliak

Line: 1 to 1

 META TOPICPARENT name="Errata"

## Chapter 3: Introduction to Noncooperative Game Theory: Games in Normal Form

>
>
• Page number: 64
• Section number: 3.3.4
• Date: 16.7.2016
• Name: Petr Poliak
• Email: petrpoliak9@gmailDELETEthisTEXT.com
• Content: End of first paragraph :"Here there is some good newsit was not just luck." It looks like it coulden't be decided whether "here" or "there" so better use both so noone misses the good news!

• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:
Line: 20 to 26

Changed:
<
<
• Content: The portion of the proof for the trivial case where the agent is indifferent should set u(.) = 0 for all outcomes and lotteries over outcomes. Part 2 is then immediate - decomposability is never used.
>
>
• Content: The portion of the proof for the trivial case where the agent is indifferent should set u(.) = 0 for all outcomes and lotteries over outcomes. Part 2 is then immediate - decomposability is never used.

• Page number: 52
• Section number: Theorem 3.1.8 (Proof)
• Date: 5 Feb 2009
• Name: Nimalan Mahendran
• Email:nimalan@cs.ubc.ca
Changed:
<
<
• Content:o1 indiff l1 strict_pref l2 indiff o2 need only follow from transitivity and completeness.
>
>
• Content:o1 indiff l1 strict_pref l2 indiff o2 need only follow from transitivity and completeness.

• Page number: 71
• Section number: Theorem 3.3.22 (Nash, 1951)
• Date: 5 Feb 2009
Line: 38 to 44

• Date:6 Feb 2009
• Name:Nimalan Mahendran
• Email:nimalan@cs.ubc.ca
Changed:
<
<
• Content:In the first line of part 1, lottery l_1 should be [u(o_1) : o_overbar; 1 - u(o_1) : o_underbar] and similarly for l_2. Otherwise, (u(o_1) + (1 - u(o_2) = 1) does not necessarily hold, making it an invalid lottery. Also, the definition seems to follow (for me, at least) from the previous paragraph where it says o_i \indiff [u(o_i) : o_overbar; (1 - u(o_i)) : o_underbar].
>
>
• Content:In the first line of part 1, lottery l_1 should be [u(o_1) : o_overbar; 1 - u(o_1) : o_underbar] and similarly for l_2. Otherwise, (u(o_1) + (1 - u(o_2) = 1) does not necessarily hold, making it an invalid lottery. Also, the definition seems to follow (for me, at least) from the previous paragraph where it says o_i \indiff [u(o_i) : o_overbar; (1 - u(o_i)) : o_underbar].

• Page number: 52
• Section number: Theorem 3.1.8
• Date: June 19 2009

#### Revision 62010-02-28 - KevinLeytonBrown

Line: 1 to 1

 META TOPICPARENT name="Errata"

## Chapter 3: Introduction to Noncooperative Game Theory: Games in Normal Form

• Page number:
Line: 45 to 45

• Name: Nicolas Dudebout
• Email:
• Content: The utility function should be defined not only over the finite set O but also over all the lotteries on O. Else, the LHS of Part 2 is not defined.
>
>
• Page number: 83
• Section number: 3.4.6
• Date: Feb 27, 2010
• Name: Kevin
• Content: Changed the definition of trembling-hand perfect equilibrium to use notation consistent with the rest of the book: "A mixed-strategy profile $s$ is a (trembling-hand) perfect equilibrium of a normal-form game $G$ if there exists a sequence $s^0, s^1, \ldots$ of fully mixed-strategy profiles such that $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}s^n=s$, and such that for each $s^k$ in the sequence and each player $i$, the strategy $s_i$ is a best response to the strategies $s_{-i}^k$."
-- KevinLeytonBrown - 13 Nov 2008 \ No newline at end of file

#### Revision 52010-02-23 - KevinLeytonBrown

Line: 1 to 1

 META TOPICPARENT name="Errata"

## Chapter 3: Introduction to Noncooperative Game Theory: Games in Normal Form

>
>
• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:
• Name:
• Email:
• Content:
• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:
• Name:
• Email:
• Content:

### The following errors are fixed in the second printing of the book and online PDF v1.1

• Page number: 52
• Section number: Theorem 3.1.8 (Proof)
• Date: 5 Feb 2009
Line: 31 to 45

• Name: Nicolas Dudebout
• Email:
• Content: The utility function should be defined not only over the finite set O but also over all the lotteries on O. Else, the LHS of Part 2 is not defined.
Deleted:
<
<
• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:
• Name:
• Email:
• Content:
-- KevinLeytonBrown - 13 Nov 2008 \ No newline at end of file

#### Revision 42009-06-19 - NicolasDudebout

Line: 1 to 1

 META TOPICPARENT name="Errata"

## Chapter 3: Introduction to Noncooperative Game Theory: Games in Normal Form

• Page number: 52
Line: 25 to 25

• Name:Nimalan Mahendran
• Email:nimalan@cs.ubc.ca
• Content:In the first line of part 1, lottery l_1 should be [u(o_1) : o_overbar; 1 - u(o_1) : o_underbar] and similarly for l_2. Otherwise, (u(o_1) + (1 - u(o_2) = 1) does not necessarily hold, making it an invalid lottery. Also, the definition seems to follow (for me, at least) from the previous paragraph where it says o_i \indiff [u(o_i) : o_overbar; (1 - u(o_i)) : o_underbar].
>
>
• Page number: 52
• Section number: Theorem 3.1.8
• Date: June 19 2009
• Name: Nicolas Dudebout
• Email:
• Content: The utility function should be defined not only over the finite set O but also over all the lotteries on O. Else, the LHS of Part 2 is not defined.

• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:

#### Revision 32009-02-06 - NimalanMahendran

Line: 1 to 1

 META TOPICPARENT name="Errata"

## Chapter 3: Introduction to Noncooperative Game Theory: Games in Normal Form

• Page number: 52
Line: 19 to 19

• Name: Nimalan Mahendran
• Email:nimalan@cs.ubc.ca
• Content:Notation: u_i(a_i, s_{-i}) represents i's utility of playing action a_i given everyone else played s_{-i}. The last paragraph of the proof contains the following notation, which is inconsistent: u_{i, a'_i}(s). This should be u_i(a'_i, s_{-i}).
>
>
• Page number: 52
• Section number:Theorem 3.1.8 (Proof), Part 1
• Date:6 Feb 2009
• Name:Nimalan Mahendran
• Email:nimalan@cs.ubc.ca
• Content:In the first line of part 1, lottery l_1 should be [u(o_1) : o_overbar; 1 - u(o_1) : o_underbar] and similarly for l_2. Otherwise, (u(o_1) + (1 - u(o_2) = 1) does not necessarily hold, making it an invalid lottery. Also, the definition seems to follow (for me, at least) from the previous paragraph where it says o_i \indiff [u(o_i) : o_overbar; (1 - u(o_i)) : o_underbar].

• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:

#### Revision 22009-02-06 - NimalanMahendran

Line: 1 to 1

 META TOPICPARENT name="Errata"

## Chapter 3: Introduction to Noncooperative Game Theory: Games in Normal Form

Changed:
<
<
• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:
• Name:
• Email:
• Content:
>
>
• Page number: 52
• Section number: Theorem 3.1.8 (Proof)
• Date: 5 Feb 2009
• Name: Nimalan Mahendran
• Email: nimalan@csDELETEthisTEXT.ubc.ca
• Content: The portion of the proof for the trivial case where the agent is indifferent should set u(.) = 0 for all outcomes and lotteries over outcomes. Part 2 is then immediate - decomposability is never used.
• Page number: 52
• Section number: Theorem 3.1.8 (Proof)
• Date: 5 Feb 2009
• Name: Nimalan Mahendran
• Email:nimalan@cs.ubc.ca
• Content:o1 indiff l1 strict_pref l2 indiff o2 need only follow from transitivity and completeness.
• Page number: 71
• Section number: Theorem 3.3.22 (Nash, 1951)
• Date: 5 Feb 2009
• Name: Nimalan Mahendran
• Email:nimalan@cs.ubc.ca
• Content:Notation: u_i(a_i, s_{-i}) represents i's utility of playing action a_i given everyone else played s_{-i}. The last paragraph of the proof contains the following notation, which is inconsistent: u_{i, a'_i}(s). This should be u_i(a'_i, s_{-i}).

• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:

#### Revision 12008-11-13 - KevinLeytonBrown

Line: 1 to 1
>
>
 META TOPICPARENT name="Errata"

## Chapter 3: Introduction to Noncooperative Game Theory: Games in Normal Form

• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:
• Name:
• Email:
• Content:
• Page number:
• Section number:
• Date:
• Name:
• Email:
• Content:

-- KevinLeytonBrown - 13 Nov 2008

Copyright © 2008-2022 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? Send feedback