# Nash Equilibrium Sets in Dyadic Trimatrix Mixed-Strategy Games

• Valeriu Ungureanu
Chapter
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 89)

## Abstract

The approach exposed in Chap.  is applied to solve three-matrix $$2\times 2\times 2$$ mixed-strategy games. Such games, alike the games considered in the precedent chapter and the result presented in the following chapter, admit a simple graphic representation of Nash equilibrium sets in a Cartesian system of coordinates. The results of this chapter were successfully applied by Y.M. Zhukov to investigate “An Epidemic Model of Violence and Public Support in Civil War” in the Department of Government at Harvard University (Zhukov, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 30(1):24–52, 2013, [1]). Evidently, a full graphical representation of the Nash equilibrium sets in the Cartesian system of coordinates is not possible in the case of four and more players. We can only suppose the possibility of such representation for the four-matrix $$2\times 2\times 2\times 2$$ mixed-strategy games in the Barycentric coordinate system or other coordinate systems. Sure, in the context of results presented in Chap.  for dyadic two-matrix games, an important problem for dyadic three-matrix games is that of defining explicitly a Nash equilibrium set function as a piecewise set-valued function. In this chapter, we solve the problem of NES function definition algorithmically as the number of components/pieces of the NES piecewise set-valued function is substantially larger in the case of dyadic three-matrix mixed-strategy games because of more pieces/components of the piecewise set-valued function that defines best response mapping graph of each player.

## References

1. 1.
Zhukov, Y.M. 2013. An epidemic model of violence and public support in civil war. Conflict Management and Peace Science 30 (1): 24–52.
2. 2.
McKelvey, R.D., and A. McLenan. 1996. Computation of equilibria in finite games. Handbook of Computational Economics, vol. 1, 87–142. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
3. 3.
Vorob’ev, N.N. 1984. Foundations of Game Theory: Noncooperative Games. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian); Trans. R.P. Boas, Basel-Boston: Birkhäuser, 1994, 497 pp.Google Scholar
4. 4.
Vorob’ev, N.N. 1985. Game Theory: Lectures for Economists and Systems Scientists. Moscow: Nauka (in Russian); Trans. and supplemented by S. Kotz, New York: Springer, 1985, 193 pp.Google Scholar
5. 5.
Datta, R.S. 2010. Finding all Nash equilibria of a finite game using polynomial algebra. Economic Theory 42: 55–96.
6. 6.
Nash, J. 1951. Noncooperative games. Annals of Mathematics 54 (2): 280–295.
7. 7.
Moulen, H. 1981. Théorie des jeux pour l’éqonomie et la politique. Paris (in Russian: Game Theory, Moscow: Mir, 1985), 200 pp.Google Scholar
8. 8.
Sagaidac, M., and V. Ungureanu. 2004. Operational Research. Chişinău: CEP USM, 296 pp. (in Romanian).Google Scholar
9. 9.
Ungureanu, V., and I. Mandric. 2010. Set of Nash equilibria in $$2\times 2\times 2$$ mixed extended games, from the Wolfram Demonstrations Project. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/SetOfNashEquilibriaIn2x2x2MixedExtendedGames/