How so? The common payoff game where you and I name a number and we both receive the sum of the numbers we name has a Pareto improvement on any strategy: we can always name higher numbers.
Maybe the confusion was the way I used “feasible”? Does it have a different definition in game theory? I stick by the first phrasing I used: a game is completely adversarial if no strategy profiles are Pareto over any others.
I read “feasible” as something like “rationalizable.” I think it would have been much clearer if you had said “if no strategy profiles are Pareto over any others.”
How so? The common payoff game where you and I name a number and we both receive the sum of the numbers we name has a Pareto improvement on any strategy: we can always name higher numbers.
Maybe the confusion was the way I used “feasible”? Does it have a different definition in game theory? I stick by the first phrasing I used: a game is completely adversarial if no strategy profiles are Pareto over any others.
I read “feasible” as something like “rationalizable.” I think it would have been much clearer if you had said “if no strategy profiles are Pareto over any others.”