Game Theory and Logic
| Description: Game Theory and Logic Quiz | |
| Number of Questions: 14 | |
| Created by: Aliensbrain Bot | |
| Tags: game theory logic decision theory |
In game theory, what is the term for a situation where each player's best strategy depends on the strategies of the other players?
-
Nash equilibrium
-
Prisoner's dilemma
-
Zero-sum game
-
Pareto efficiency
A Nash equilibrium is a set of strategies, one for each player, such that no player can improve their outcome by unilaterally changing their strategy while the other players keep their strategies unchanged.
In the Prisoner's dilemma, what is the dominant strategy for each player?
-
Cooperate
-
Defect
-
Tit-for-tat
-
Grim trigger
The dominant strategy for each player in the Prisoner's dilemma is to defect, regardless of what the other player does. This is because each player can always improve their outcome by defecting, no matter what the other player does.
In a zero-sum game, what is the sum of the payoffs to all players?
-
Zero
-
Positive
-
Negative
-
Indeterminate
In a zero-sum game, the sum of the payoffs to all players is always zero. This is because for every winner, there must be a loser, and the amount that the winner gains is exactly equal to the amount that the loser loses.
What is the Pareto efficiency criterion?
-
A social state is Pareto efficient if it is impossible to make any one person better off without making someone else worse off.
-
A social state is Pareto efficient if it maximizes the sum of the utilities of all individuals.
-
A social state is Pareto efficient if it minimizes the sum of the utilities of all individuals.
-
A social state is Pareto efficient if it maximizes the product of the utilities of all individuals.
The Pareto efficiency criterion is a social welfare criterion that states that a social state is Pareto efficient if it is impossible to make any one person better off without making someone else worse off. In other words, a Pareto efficient social state is one where it is impossible to improve the welfare of any one individual without harming the welfare of another individual.
What is the difference between deductive and inductive logic?
-
Deductive logic is based on the principle of syllogism, while inductive logic is based on the principle of generalization.
-
Deductive logic is based on the principle of generalization, while inductive logic is based on the principle of syllogism.
-
Deductive logic is based on the principle of syllogism, while inductive logic is based on the principle of analogy.
-
Deductive logic is based on the principle of analogy, while inductive logic is based on the principle of syllogism.
Deductive logic is based on the principle of syllogism, which states that if two premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. Inductive logic, on the other hand, is based on the principle of generalization, which states that if a certain pattern is observed in a number of cases, then it is likely to hold true in future cases as well.
What is the difference between a valid and a sound argument?
-
A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows logically from the premises, while a sound argument is one where the premises are true.
-
A valid argument is one where the premises are true, while a sound argument is one where the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
-
A valid argument is one where the conclusion is true, while a sound argument is one where the premises are true.
-
A valid argument is one where the premises are true, while a sound argument is one where the conclusion is true.
A valid argument is one where the conclusion follows logically from the premises, regardless of whether the premises are true or not. A sound argument, on the other hand, is one where both the premises are true and the conclusion follows logically from the premises.
What is the fallacy of affirming the consequent?
-
Assuming that if the consequent of a conditional statement is true, then the antecedent must also be true.
-
Assuming that if the antecedent of a conditional statement is true, then the consequent must also be true.
-
Assuming that if the negation of the consequent of a conditional statement is true, then the negation of the antecedent must also be true.
-
Assuming that if the negation of the antecedent of a conditional statement is true, then the negation of the consequent must also be true.
The fallacy of affirming the consequent is the logical fallacy of assuming that if the consequent of a conditional statement is true, then the antecedent must also be true. This is a fallacy because the truth of the consequent does not guarantee the truth of the antecedent.
What is the fallacy of denying the antecedent?
-
Assuming that if the antecedent of a conditional statement is false, then the consequent must also be false.
-
Assuming that if the consequent of a conditional statement is false, then the antecedent must also be false.
-
Assuming that if the negation of the antecedent of a conditional statement is true, then the negation of the consequent must also be true.
-
Assuming that if the negation of the consequent of a conditional statement is true, then the negation of the antecedent must also be true.
The fallacy of denying the antecedent is the logical fallacy of assuming that if the antecedent of a conditional statement is false, then the consequent must also be false. This is a fallacy because the falsity of the antecedent does not guarantee the falsity of the consequent.
What is the difference between a categorical and a hypothetical syllogism?
-
A categorical syllogism is one where the premises and conclusion are all categorical statements, while a hypothetical syllogism is one where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is a hypothetical statement.
-
A categorical syllogism is one where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is a hypothetical statement, while a hypothetical syllogism is one where the premises and conclusion are all categorical statements.
-
A categorical syllogism is one where the premises are both true and the conclusion is false, while a hypothetical syllogism is one where the premises are both false and the conclusion is true.
-
A categorical syllogism is one where the premises are both false and the conclusion is true, while a hypothetical syllogism is one where the premises are both true and the conclusion is false.
A categorical syllogism is one where the premises and conclusion are all categorical statements, which means that they are statements that make a general claim about a class of things. A hypothetical syllogism, on the other hand, is one where at least one of the premises or the conclusion is a hypothetical statement, which means that it is a statement that makes a claim about a conditional relationship between two things.
What is the difference between a deductive and an inductive argument?
-
A deductive argument is one where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, while an inductive argument is one where the conclusion is only probably true even if the premises are true.
-
A deductive argument is one where the conclusion is only probably true even if the premises are true, while an inductive argument is one where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true.
-
A deductive argument is one where the premises are true and the conclusion is false, while an inductive argument is one where the premises are false and the conclusion is true.
-
A deductive argument is one where the premises are false and the conclusion is true, while an inductive argument is one where the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
A deductive argument is one where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true. This is because the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises. An inductive argument, on the other hand, is one where the conclusion is only probably true even if the premises are true. This is because the conclusion is not a logical consequence of the premises, but is instead based on the observation of a pattern in a number of cases.
What is the difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition?
-
A necessary condition is one that must be met in order for something to happen, while a sufficient condition is one that is enough to ensure that something happens.
-
A necessary condition is one that is enough to ensure that something happens, while a sufficient condition is one that must be met in order for something to happen.
-
A necessary condition is one that is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to happen, while a sufficient condition is one that is both necessary and sufficient for something to happen.
-
A necessary condition is one that is both necessary and sufficient for something to happen, while a sufficient condition is one that is neither necessary nor sufficient for something to happen.
A necessary condition is one that must be met in order for something to happen. In other words, if the necessary condition is not met, then the thing cannot happen. A sufficient condition, on the other hand, is one that is enough to ensure that something happens. In other words, if the sufficient condition is met, then the thing will definitely happen.
What is the difference between a tautology and a contradiction?
-
A tautology is a statement that is always true, while a contradiction is a statement that is always false.
-
A tautology is a statement that is always false, while a contradiction is a statement that is always true.
-
A tautology is a statement that is sometimes true and sometimes false, while a contradiction is a statement that is never true.
-
A tautology is a statement that is never true, while a contradiction is a statement that is sometimes true and sometimes false.
A tautology is a statement that is always true, regardless of the values of its variables. This is because the statement is true by virtue of its logical form. A contradiction, on the other hand, is a statement that is always false, regardless of the values of its variables. This is also because the statement is false by virtue of its logical form.
What is the difference between a universal and an existential quantifier?
-
A universal quantifier asserts that something is true for all members of a set, while an existential quantifier asserts that something is true for at least one member of a set.
-
A universal quantifier asserts that something is true for at least one member of a set, while an existential quantifier asserts that something is true for all members of a set.
-
A universal quantifier asserts that something is true for some members of a set, while an existential quantifier asserts that something is true for all members of a set.
-
A universal quantifier asserts that something is true for all members of a set, while an existential quantifier asserts that something is true for some members of a set.
A universal quantifier asserts that something is true for all members of a set. This means that the statement is true regardless of which member of the set is chosen. An existential quantifier, on the other hand, asserts that something is true for at least one member of a set. This means that the statement is true if there is at least one member of the set for which the statement is true.
What is the difference between a deductive and an inductive argument?
-
A deductive argument is one where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true, while an inductive argument is one where the conclusion is only probably true even if the premises are true.
-
A deductive argument is one where the conclusion is only probably true even if the premises are true, while an inductive argument is one where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true.
-
A deductive argument is one where the premises are true and the conclusion is false, while an inductive argument is one where the premises are false and the conclusion is true.
-
A deductive argument is one where the premises are false and the conclusion is true, while an inductive argument is one where the premises are true and the conclusion is false.
A deductive argument is one where the conclusion is guaranteed to be true if the premises are true. This is because the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises. An inductive argument, on the other hand, is one where the conclusion is only probably true even if the premises are true. This is because the conclusion is not a logical consequence of the premises, but is instead based on the observation of a pattern in a number of cases.