w******u
发帖数: 156 | 1 In a market with transferable utility there are 5 agents.
Two are holding 2 left gloves each and three are holding 1
right gove each.
The worth of a coalition is the maximum number of proper
pairs of gloves the
coalition possesses. Find a core allocation. Suppose people
with right gloves
form a union. Does the core predict that the union benefits
its memebers?
Without union, the game (v, N) N={L,L,R,R,R} is:
v(L,R)=1 v(L,L,R)=1 v(L,R,R)=2 v(L,L,R,R)=2 v(N)=3
otherwise v(S)=0
It is easy to prove | q**i
发帖数: 174 | 2 I don't understand the notations used here and "core
allocation"
so my comments may be off.
1) is there any cost to form the union, or to join the
coalition? or any benefits to get out the coalition?
it sounds like there is nothing to lose to join the
coalition, absent of any of the above.
2) this sounds like "divide and conqure": a few power
players
(those holding 2 left gloves) and a bunch of smaller players
(those holding single right gloves). In this particular
case,
the pressure is on the p | z***e
发帖数: 1757 | 3
????
How come (1.5, 0) is in the core?
X_L+X_R'>=2, 2X_L+X_R'<=3,
=> X_L<1, X_R'>1,
am I right?
Why union make things worse? I think it's because it limits individual R to
pairmatch with L.
【在 w******u 的大作中提到】
: In a market with transferable utility there are 5 agents.
: Two are holding 2 left gloves each and three are holding 1
: right gove each.
: The worth of a coalition is the maximum number of proper
: pairs of gloves the
: coalition possesses. Find a core allocation. Suppose people
: with right gloves
: form a union. Does the core predict that the union benefits
: its memebers?
: Without union, the game (v, N) N={L,L,R,R,R} is:
| w******u
发帖数: 156 | 4
You are right. (1.5,0) is not in the core. (1.0,1.0) is.
Anyway, what I wanted to
say is, there are more core elements than before, and some
are worse for Rs.
Thank you!
【在 z***e 的大作中提到】
:
: ????
: How come (1.5, 0) is in the core?
: X_L+X_R'>=2, 2X_L+X_R'<=3,
: => X_L<1, X_R'>1,
: am I right?
: Why union make things worse? I think it's because it limits individual R to
: pairmatch with L.
|
|
