Thanks for finding this! I’m a bit confused, though; it suggests that the game with payoffs
3,3 2,1
1,2 0,0
(an instance of Cake Eating), is equivalent to one of those named games. But… which? It only has one pure Nash equilibrium, so it can’t be either hawk-dove or BOS, which both have two. And it can’t be equivalent to PD—an instance of that would be
3,3 1,4
4,1 0,0
and these aren’t equivalent. We have a11>a21 (3 > 1) but c11<c21 (3 < 4). So what am I missing?
(I had intended to try look this up myself, but I’m unlikely to do that in a timely manner, so I’m just leaving a comment. No obligation on you, of course.)
My best guess is that the book considers cake-eating to be trivial (just both eat cake), and is therefore not worried about even thinking about it, so it slipped the list.
Thanks for finding this! I’m a bit confused, though; it suggests that the game with payoffs
(an instance of Cake Eating), is equivalent to one of those named games. But… which? It only has one pure Nash equilibrium, so it can’t be either hawk-dove or BOS, which both have two. And it can’t be equivalent to PD—an instance of that would be
and these aren’t equivalent. We have a11>a21 (3 > 1) but c11<c21 (3 < 4). So what am I missing?
(I had intended to try look this up myself, but I’m unlikely to do that in a timely manner, so I’m just leaving a comment. No obligation on you, of course.)
My best guess is that the book considers cake-eating to be trivial (just both eat cake), and is therefore not worried about even thinking about it, so it slipped the list.