defined on some probability space, (Ω,B(Ω), μ), of uncertain, mutually observableoutcomes (e.g., firm profit levels), where Ω is a separable metric space, B(Ω) is theBorel σ-field of events (i.e., a countably generated σ-field), <strong>and</strong> μ is a probabilitymeasure (a common prior) defined on B(Ω). In this example, firm i 0 s strategy set,X i , is a convex, w ∗ -compact <strong>and</strong> metrizable subset of the norm dual, L ∞ , consistingof essentially bounded measurable functions, where L ∞ is the separable norm dualof the separable Banach space L 1 of μ-equivalence classes of functions, f : Ω → R,with finite expectations.We might also suppose that Z is given by X := X 1 ×···×X m the convex, w ∗ -compact <strong>and</strong> metrizable subset of compensation function profiles. Thus parameter,g e := (g e 1 ,...,ge m) ∈ Z := X := X 1 ×···×X m ,can be thought of as representing firms’ expectations concerning what compensationcontracts might be offered in equilibrium.Thus by Theorem 4, both Z <strong>and</strong> X i are dendrites.(2) Noncooperative Network Formation Games: R<strong>and</strong>om Sender <strong>and</strong> ReceiverNetworksHere we give an example of a parameterized collection of network formation gameswhere strategy spaces <strong>and</strong> the parameter space are convex, w ∗ -compact sets of probabilitymeasures. we will return to this example later in the paper.Consider m individuals seeking noncooperatively to form a network of local connections.Each connection is represented by a 3-tuple, (a, (i, j)) ∈ A × (N × N),where a ∈ A isthetypeofconnection(thearctype)playeri ∈ N sends to playerj ∈ N. Fromthepointofviewofthei th player, connection (a, (i, j)) can be thoughtof as an i th sender connection. Conversely, viewed from the point of view of the j thplayer connection (a, (i, j)) can be thought of as a j th receiver connection. The setof all i-sender connections is given by the Cartesian productA × ({i}×N), (13)while the set of all j-receiver connections is given by the Cartesian productA × (N ×{j}). (14)The set of i-loops, i.e., connections sent <strong>and</strong> received by player i isgivenbytheCartesian productA × ({i}×{i}). (15)Formally, we need the following notation:N := {1, 2,...,m} the set of nodes, with each node representing a player, withtypical elements denoted by i <strong>and</strong> j;A := the set of arc types (or actions) potentially available to at all players;A ij := a subset of A containing all i-sender arcs (or actions) potentially available toplayer i for initiating connections with player j;12
K + iK − j:= A×({i}×N) the set of all possible i-sender connections with typical element(a, (i, j)) ∈ A ij × ({i}×{j});:= A × (N ×{j}) the set of all possible j-receiver connections with typicalelement (a, (i, j)) ∈ A ij × ({i}×{j});K := A × (N × N) be the set of all connections with typical element denoted by(a, (i, j)).Assume that the set of arc types, A, is a compact metric space with metric d A ,<strong>and</strong> that for each ordered player pair, (i, j), the feasible set of i-sender arcs, A ij ,isad A -closed(<strong>and</strong>hencead A -compact) subset of A. Equipping the set of nodes N withthe discrete metric, d N (so that, d N (i, j) =0if i = j <strong>and</strong> 1 otherwise), we can thenequip the set of connections, K, with the metricd K := d A + d N + d N .Thus, the d K -distance between connections (a, (i, j)) <strong>and</strong> (a 0 , (i 0 ,j 0 )) in K is given byd K ((a, (i, j)), (a 0 , (i 0 ,j 0 ))) := d A (a, a 0 )+d N (i, i 0 )+d N (j, j 0 ).Letting P f (K) denote the collection of all nonempty, d K -closed subsets of connections(i.e., nonempty, closed subsets of A×(N ×N)), equip P f (K) with the Hausdorffmetric, h K , generated by the metric d K <strong>and</strong> note that because (K, d K ) is a compactmetric space, so too is (P f (K),h K ). Moreover, because Ki+ is a d K -closed subset ofK, the collection P f (Ki + ) of all nonempty, d K-closed subsets of i-sender connections(i.e., nonempty, closed subsets of A × ({i}×N)), is an h K -closed subset of P f (K).Similarly, P f (Kj − ) the collection of all nonempty, d K-closed subsets of j-receiver connections(i.e., nonempty, closed subsets of A×(N ×{j})) equipped with the Hausdorffmetric, h K ,isanh K -closed subset of P f (K).Definition 1 (i)(FeasibleNetworks)AnetworkG is a nonempty closed subset ofconnections (i.e., G ∈ P f (K)) such that (i) if (a, (i, j)) ∈ G, then a ∈ A ij ,<strong>and</strong>(ii)for all node pairs, (i, j), thesectionofG at (i, j) given byG(ij) :={a ∈ A ij :(a, (i, j)) ∈ G} (16)contains at most one arc (i.e., |G(ij)| ≤ 1, where|G(ij)| denotes the cardinality ofthe set G(ij)). Let G ⊂ P f (K) denote the collection of all feasible networks.(ii) (Feasible Sender Networks) An i-sender network, gi + , is a nonempty closedsubset of i-sender connections (i.e., gi + ∈ P f (Ki + )) such that (i) if (a, (i, j)) ∈ g+ i ,then a ∈ A ij <strong>and</strong> (ii) for all nodes j ∈ N, thesectionofg i at (i, j) given bygi + (ij) :=© a ∈ A ij :(a, (i, j)) ∈ gi+ ª(17)13
- Page 5: cally approximated by continuous fu
- Page 12 and 13: the set x 0 x 1 ∈ C w ∗ f(X) is
- Page 16 and 17: contains at most one arc (i.e., ¯
- Page 18 and 19: into the collection of Ky Fan sets
- Page 20 and 21: 3.1 Best Response MappingsLetting p
- Page 22 and 23: 4.1 Nikaido-Isoda FunctionsWith eac
- Page 24 and 25: Because Φ(z) × Φ(z) is w ∗ ×
- Page 26 and 27: where for all n, C n ∈ S E n,then
- Page 28 and 29: Definition 4 (The 3M Property - The
- Page 30 and 31: Given (48) and the fact that for n
- Page 32 and 33: We note that if m(z) ∈ P w ∗ f(
- Page 34 and 35: 6.3 AK Convergence of Minimal Nash
- Page 36 and 37: and Gr ρZ ×w ∗f ∗ (·) is the
- Page 38 and 39: In particular, for all n ≥ N 0 an
- Page 40 and 41: the cutting defined by the cut poin
- Page 42 and 43: According to our main result, under
- Page 44 and 45: By our main approximation result, f
- Page 46 and 47: 9 Appendix 1: USCO FundamentalsIn t
- Page 48 and 49: 9.3 Equi-QuasicontinuityIn order to
- Page 50 and 51: 9.5 Dense SelectionsFor each F ∈
- Page 52 and 53: 10 Appendix 2: The Proof of Lemma 8
- Page 54 and 55: Noting that if E ∈ D eE ,thenn eE
- Page 56 and 57: 12 Appendix 4: The Proof That All K
- Page 58 and 59: Letting E 1 =[E 1 \(X × U 2 )] ∪
- Page 60 and 61: [10] Bryant, V. W. (1970) “The Co
- Page 62: [42] Ward, L. E., Jr. (1958) “A F