MathLabs
TheoremProved

Nash's existence theorem

Statement

Every finite normal-form game (any number of players nn, each with a finite pure-strategy set SiS_i) has at least one Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies.

Why is it true?

The proof builds a continuous "improve your strategy a little" map on the space of all strategy profiles: nudge probability toward any pure strategy currently doing better than average. Since the space of strategy profiles is compact and convex, Brouwer's fixed-point theorem guarantees this map has a fixed point — a profile that the map does not want to change. The proof's remaining work shows a fixed point is exactly a profile with no profitable deviation, i.e. a Nash equilibrium.

Proof sketch

Let Δ=Δ1×⋯×Δn\Delta = \Delta_1 \times \cdots \times \Delta_n, the product of the players' mixed-strategy simplices — a compact, convex subset of Euclidean space. For x∈Δx \in \Delta, player ii, and pure strategy j∈Sij \in S_i, define the gain function gij(x)=max⁡(0, ui(sij,x−i)−ui(x))g_{ij}(x) = \max\big(0,\, u_i(s_{ij}, x_{-i}) - u_i(x)\big), the payoff player ii would gain by switching entirely to pure strategy jj, or 00 if that switch would not help. Define f:Δ→Δf : \Delta \to \Delta by fi(x)j=xij+gij(x)1+∑k∈Sigik(x)f_i(x)_j = \dfrac{x_{ij} + g_{ij}(x)}{1 + \sum_{k \in S_i} g_{ik}(x)}; since uiu_i is continuous (indeed multilinear) in xx, gijg_{ij} is continuous, so ff is continuous, and each fi(x)f_i(x) is again a probability vector by construction.

By Brouwer's fixed-point theorem, the continuous map ff on the compact convex set Δ\Delta has a fixed point x⋆x^\star with f(x⋆)=x⋆f(x^\star) = x^\star. Write Si:=∑k∈Sigik(x⋆)S_i := \sum_{k \in S_i} g_{ik}(x^\star); the fixed-point equation for each (i,j)(i,j) reads xij⋆(1+Si)=xij⋆+gij(x⋆)x_{ij}^\star (1 + S_i) = x_{ij}^\star + g_{ij}(x^\star), i.e. xij⋆Si=gij(x⋆)x_{ij}^\star S_i = g_{ij}(x^\star).

Fix a player ii and let dij:=ui(sij,x−i⋆)−ui(x⋆)d_{ij} := u_i(s_{ij}, x_{-i}^\star) - u_i(x^\star), so gij(x⋆)=max⁡(0,dij)g_{ij}(x^\star) = \max(0, d_{ij}). Multiply the fixed-point equation by dijd_{ij} and sum over j∈Sij \in S_i: on the left, Si∑jxij⋆dij=Si(∑jxij⋆ui(sij,x−i⋆)−ui(x⋆)∑jxij⋆)=Si(ui(x⋆)−ui(x⋆))=0S_i \sum_j x_{ij}^\star d_{ij} = S_i\left(\sum_j x_{ij}^\star u_i(s_{ij}, x_{-i}^\star) - u_i(x^\star)\sum_j x_{ij}^\star\right) = S_i(u_i(x^\star) - u_i(x^\star)) = 0, using ∑jxij⋆ui(sij,x−i⋆)=ui(x⋆)\sum_j x_{ij}^\star u_i(s_{ij}, x_{-i}^\star) = u_i(x^\star) and ∑jxij⋆=1\sum_j x_{ij}^\star = 1.

On the right, ∑jgij(x⋆) dij=∑jmax⁡(0,dij) dij=∑j: dij>0dij2≥0\sum_j g_{ij}(x^\star)\, d_{ij} = \sum_j \max(0,d_{ij})\, d_{ij} = \sum_{j:\, d_{ij} > 0} d_{ij}^2 \ge 0. Equating both sides, ∑j: dij>0dij2=0\sum_{j:\, d_{ij}>0} d_{ij}^2 = 0, a sum of squares equal to zero, so every term vanishes: there is no jj with dij>0d_{ij} > 0. Since ii was arbitrary, ui(sij,x−i⋆)≤ui(x⋆)u_i(s_{ij}, x_{-i}^\star) \le u_i(x^\star) for every player ii and every pure strategy jj — precisely the Nash equilibrium condition. Hence x⋆x^\star is a Nash equilibrium.

Topics that use this theorem

Step-by-step proofs

No step-by-step proof yet for this theorem.

References

  1. John von Neumann, Oskar Morgenstern (1944). Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
  2. John F. Nash Jr. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games · DOI:10.1073/pnas.36.1.48
  3. John F. Nash Jr. (1951). Non-Cooperative Games · DOI:10.2307/1969529
  4. Constantinos Daskalakis, Paul W. Goldberg, Christos H. Papadimitriou (2009). The Complexity of Computing a Nash Equilibrium · DOI:10.1137/070699652