1989
DOI: 10.2307/1913627
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Extensive Form Games in Continuous Time: Pure Strategies

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
130
0

Year Published

1997
1997
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 201 publications
(136 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
4
130
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We also note that their proof method does not imply uniqueness, even under the setting in our paper. Papavassilopoulos and Cruz (1979) show that, in a certain class of deterministic models, an equilibrium is unique within the 2 We choose an imperfect monitoring set-up in order to avoid technical issues that can arise in formalizing perfect monitoring in continuous time (e.g., Simon and Stinchcombe (1989) and Bergin and MacLeod (1993)). In Supplementary Appendix C.2.1, we show a sense in which the monitoring imperfectness itself is not important for our uniqueness result, by using a discrete-time model with noisy state evolution.…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We also note that their proof method does not imply uniqueness, even under the setting in our paper. Papavassilopoulos and Cruz (1979) show that, in a certain class of deterministic models, an equilibrium is unique within the 2 We choose an imperfect monitoring set-up in order to avoid technical issues that can arise in formalizing perfect monitoring in continuous time (e.g., Simon and Stinchcombe (1989) and Bergin and MacLeod (1993)). In Supplementary Appendix C.2.1, we show a sense in which the monitoring imperfectness itself is not important for our uniqueness result, by using a discrete-time model with noisy state evolution.…”
Section: Related Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%
“…We also note that there is a technical issue in formulating non-Markovian strategies without noise in continuous time (e.g., Simon and Stinchcombe (1989)). …”
Section: Key Assumptions Underlying the Uniquenessmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2 ) by admissibility, it follows that the functions with the integrals in (20) are continuous over [0, T * 2 ). This implies that these integrals are themselves differentiable functions of t < T * 2 .…”
Section: Lemma 8 Any Admissible Solution G(· ; 0) To (15) Is Continuomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One first has the following lemma. (20) for all t < T * 2 . For any such t, the functions within the integrals in (20) are integrable over [0, t].…”
mentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation