/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 55 We defined a dummy as a player t... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

We defined a dummy as a player that is never critical. Explain why each of the following is true: (a) If \(P\) is a dummy, then any winning coalition that contains \(P\) would also be a winning coalition without \(P\). (b) \(P\) is a dummy if and only if the Banzhaf power index of \(P\) is 0 (c) \(P\) is a dummy if and only if the Shapley-Shubik power index of \(P\) is \(0 .\)

Short Answer

Expert verified
(a) A dummy player's absence or presence does not influence the status of a winning coalition. (b) A dummy player's Banzhaf power index is 0 as a dummy player is never a swing vote. (c) A dummy player's Shapley-Shubik power index is 0 as its order of joining does not affect the value of the coalition.

Step by step solution

01

Understanding the Characteristics of a Dummy Player

A dummy player is one who is not critical or indispensable to the coalition. Thus, their presence or absence does not influence the status of the coalition as winning or not.
02

Explaining Part (a)

If \(P\) is a dummy, then it is not critical or necessary to a winning coalition. Hence if a coalition is winning with \(P\), it would still be winning without \(P\), because the presence or absence of a dummy player does not influence the coalition's status as winning or not.
03

Explaining Part (b)

The Banzhaf power index measures a player's power by the number of times a player is a 'swing vote'. If \(P\) is a dummy, \(P\) is never a swing vote, so the Banzhaf power index of \(P\) would be 0.
04

Explaining Part (c)

The Shapley-Shubik power index calculates a player's power by considering all possible permutations of the order in which players join a coalition. If \(P\) is a dummy, \(P\) makes no difference to the 'value' of the coalition regardless of the order in which players join, hence the Shapley-Shubik power index of \(P\) would also be 0.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Dummy Player
In the realm of game theory, a dummy player in a cooperative game is one whose presence or absence does not impact whether a coalition can achieve its goal. Think of a group working together to complete a project. A person who contributes no unique or critical skill to the team would be considered a 'dummy player.' In terms of power, this player does not possess any voting power that would sway decisions from failing to passing or vice-versa.

If you consider any coalition (group of players) in a game that is successful or winning, if it includes a dummy player, it remains successful even if the dummy player is removed. This is because the dummy player was never needed to reach the success initially. The player’s removal does not make or break the winning condition of the coalition.

Therefore, if a player is identified as a dummy, any coalition's status, whether winning or losing, remains unchanged by their participation. This highlights the importance of recognizing a dummy player when analyzing power dynamics in cooperative games.
Banzhaf Power Index
The Banzhaf power index is a way to measure the power or influence of a player in a decision-making body, like a coalition or voting game. It looks at how often a player can change the outcome of a group decision by being a 'swing vote.'

When we talk about swing votes, we mean those situations where the vote of a single player can decide whether a proposal passes or fails. If a player never finds themselves in this crucial position, they would have a Banzhaf power index of zero.

For a dummy player, the Banzhaf power index captures their lack of influence. Since a dummy player cannot alter the outcome, they are never a swing vote, and therefore, their Banzhaf power index is zero. This zero index confirms their lack of significance in changing the coalition's outcome, reaffirming their status as a dummy in the coalition.
Shapley-Shubik Power Index
The Shapley-Shubik power index is another tool used to evaluate a player's influence in a cooperative game. This index is particularly interesting because it considers all possible orders in which players might join a coalition. It analyzes how each player can contribute to achieving a successful outcome as they join in various sequences.

For a dummy player, since they do not add any unique value to the coalition, their joining sequence is irrelevant to the coalition's success. Their influence remains constant, regardless of when they join, and this is reflected in a Shapley-Shubik power index of zero.

This index is useful because it not only considers permutations within a coalition's formation but also provides insight into each player's potential contribution throughout different stages. When a dummy player's Shapley-Shubik index is zero, it affirms that their participation has no impact, aligning perfectly with their established role as a non-critical member in coalition scenarios.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

The Nassau County (N.Y.) Board of Supervisors (1960's version). In the 1960 's, the voting in the Nassau County Board of Supervisors was represented by the weighted voting system \([58: 31,31,28,21,2,2] .\) Assume that the players are denoted by \(P_{1}\) through \(P_{6}\) (a) List all the \(t w o-\) and three-player winning coalitions and find the critical players in each coalition. (b) List all the winning coalitions that have \(P_{4}\) as a member and find the critical players in each coalition. (c) Use the results in (b) to find the Banzhaf power index of \(P_{4}\). (d) Use the results in (a) and (c) to find the Banzhaf power distribution of the weighted voting system.

Suppose that in a weighted voting system there is a player \(A\) who hates another player \(P\) so much that he will always vote the opposite way of \(P\), regardless of the issue. We will call \(A\) the antagonist of \(P\). (a) Suppose that in the weighted voting system \([8: 5,4,3,2]\), \(P\) is the player with two votes and his antagonist \(A\) is the player with five votes. The other two players we'll call \(P_{2}\) and \(P_{3} .\) What are the possible coalitions under these circumstances? What is the Banzhaf power distribution under these circumstances? (b) Suppose that in a generic weighted voting system with \(N\) players there is a player \(P\) who has an antagonist \(A .\) How many coalitions are there under these circumstances? (c) Give examples of weighted voting systems where a player \(A\) can (i) increase his Banzhaf power index by becoming an antagonist of another player. (ii) decrease his Banzhaf power index by becoming an antagonist of another player. (d) Suppose that the antagonist \(A\) has more votes than his enemy \(P\). What is a strategy that \(P\) can use to gain power at the expense of \(A\) ?

Consider a weighted voting system with seven players \((P\) through \(P_{7}\) ). (a) Find the number of sequential coalitions in this weighted voting system. (b) How many sequential coalitions in this weighted voting system have \(P_{7}\) as the first player? (c) How many sequential coalitions in this weighted voting system have \(P_{7}\) as the last player? (d) How many sequential coalitions in this weighted voting system do not have \(P_{1}\) as the first player?

The First Electoral College (1792). The election of 1792 was the first presidential election decided by electors assigned to each state based on the Census of \(1790 .\) There were 15 states at that time-the original 13 colonies plus Vermont (admitted in 1791 ) and Kentucky (admitted in 1792 ). The number of electors from each state is shown in the second column of Table \(2-17\). Using the applet \(B\) anzhaf and ShapleyShubik Power and the number of electors as a proxy for votes in the Electoral College', compute the Banzhaf and Shapley power indexes of each of the 15 states. (Assume the quota is given by strict majority.) $$\begin{array}{l|c|c|c}\hline & \begin{array}{c}\text { Number of } \\\\\text { State }\end{array} & \begin{array}{c}\text { Banzhaf } \\\\\text { Electors }\end{array} & \begin{array}{c}\text { Shapley-Shubik } \\\\\text { Power }\end{array} & \text { Power } \\\\\hline \text { Virginia } & 21 & & \\\\\hline \text { Massachusetts } & 16 & & \\\\\hline \text { Pennsylvania } & 15 & & \\\\\hline \text { New York } & 12 & & \\\\\hline \text { North Carolina } & 12 & & \\\\\hline \text { Connecticut } & 9 & & \\\\\hline \text { Maryland } & 8 & & \\\\\hline \text { South Carolina } & 8 & & \\\\\hline \text { New Jersey } & 7 & & \\\\\hline \text { New Hampshire } & 6 & & \\\\\hline \text { Georgia } & 4 & & \\\\\hline \text { Kentucky } & 4 & & \\\\\hline \text { Rhode Island } & 4 & & \\\\\hline \text { Vermont } & 3 & & \\\\\hline \text { Delaware } & 3 & & \\\\\hline \text { Total } & \mathbf{1 3 2} & &\end{array}$$

Find the Shapley-Shubik power distribution of each of the following weighted voting systems. (a) \([15: 16,8,4,1]\) (b) \([18: 16,8,4,1]\) (c) \([24: 16,8,4,1]\) (d) \([28: 16,8,4,1]\)

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.