possible error in micro 2012 final

[Doosoo Kim]

Deal all

I think 1. (d) is wrong statement. I could find a SE. 

What do you think? Am I missing something?

Best,

Doosoo

[riju joshi]

Hmmmm...the solution reaches a contradiction..but even I am not getting any contradiction of that type..

I tried to check the sequential rationality for player 2 when beliefs at c = belief at d, I am getting that the beliefs at c and d should be less than 8/15 (for player 2 to choose r).

And your answer (with beliefs at c = beliefs at d = 0) seems to agree with my result.

I guess we could find a SE.

Hope this helps.
Riju

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MSU econ 2012 study group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to msu-econ-2012-stud...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[riju joshi]

I meant to say that "in the official solution, professor shows a contradiction"

[riju joshi]

"And I am NOT getiing that contradiction"

[Patrick Burke]

Hello,

Yeah that's pretty clearly an se. I think he was probably trying to copy 9.c.4 in the book. The requirement    that the belief at c is strictly less than the belief at d is wrong and contradicted by his own solution in part c. Unfortunately, I was a victim of the same mistake. So thanks Doosoo!

I'm not sure what you're trying to say Riju. For sequential rationality for player 2  to always play r requires ( u(b) denotes belief at node b)

8*u(c) < 7*u(d) or 8*u(c) = 7*u(d).  

-Patrick

[riju joshi]

Oh..I guess I must have made some errors in my calculations.

I first equated u(c) = u(d) in the expected payoffs and then tried to find the condition for the below to be sequential rational.  So I got my weird result.

I shouldn't have done that I guess. I should have first derived the relation between u(c) and u(d) that satisfied sequential rationality and then check sequential equilibrium.
That is a more coherent argument.

Thanks!

[riju joshi]

Oh..I guess I must have made some errors in my calculations.

I first equated u(c) = u(d) in the expected payoffs equation and then tried to find the condition for the r to be sequential rational.  So I got my weird result.

I shouldn't have done that I guess. I should have first derived the relation between u(c) and u(d) that satisfied sequential rationality and then check sequential equilibrium.
That is a more coherent argument.
Thanks

Riju

[Patrick Burke]

woops, I thought the belief structure he used was contradictory, it isn't. I read it quickly and thought  he used  u(e) =1.

[Doosoo Kim]

Thanks for your comments!

I sent an email to Prof. Mukherjee.

:) I will forward his answer

Best,

Doosoo