1: \documentclass[10pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5:
6: \title{MACROSCOPIC QUANTUM GAME}
7: \author{{\bf Andrey
8: Grib\footnote{e-mail: grib@friedman.usr.lgu.spb.su}}\\ {\bf
9: Georges Parfionov\footnote{e-mail: your@GP5574.spb.edu}} \\
10: {\small\em Alexandre Friedmann Laboratory of Theoretical
11: Physics,} \\ {\small\em St.Petersburg University of
12: Economics and Finances} \\ {\small\em St.Petersburg,Russia
13: 191023} \\ {\small\em Fax: +7(812)110-5742,\; Telephone:
14: +7(812)110-5605}}
15: \date{}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18: \maketitle
19: \begin{abstract}
20:
21: \noindent The game in which acts of participants don't
22: have an adequate description in terms of Boolean logic and
23: classical theory of probabilities is considered. The model
24: of the game interaction is constructed on the basis of a
25: non-distributive orthocomplemented lattice. Mixed
26: strategies of the participants are calculated by the use of
27: probability amplitudes according to the rules of quantum
28: mechanics. A scheme of quantization of the payoff function
29: is proposed and an algorithm for the search of Nash
30: equilibrium is given. It is shown that differently from the
31: classical case in the quantum situation a discrete set of
32: equilibria is possible.
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35:
36: It often occurs that mathematical structures discovered
37: when solving some class of problems find their natural
38: application in totally different areas. The mathematical
39: formalism of quantum mechanics operating with such notions
40: as "observable", "state", "probability amplitude" is not an
41: exception to this rule. The goal of the present paper is to
42: show that the language of quantum mechanics, initially
43: applied to the description of the microworld, is adequate
44: for the description of some macroscopic systems and
45: situations where Planck's constant plays no role. It is
46: natural to look for applications of the formalism of
47: quantum mechanics in those situations when one has
48: interactions with the element of indeterminacy. In
49: \cite{Gribook} as well as more recently \cite{Waldir} it
50: was shown that the quantum mechanical formalism can be
51: applied to description of macroscopical systems when {\it
52: the distributive} property for random events is broken. In
53: the physics of the microworld non-distributivity has an
54: objective status and must be present in principle. For
55: macroscopic systems the non-distributivity of random events
56: expresses some specific case of the observer's "ignorance".
57:
58: In the present paper a quantum mechanical formalism is
59: applied to the analysis of a conflict interaction, the
60: mathematical model for which is an antagonistic game of two
61: persons. The game is based on a generalization of examples
62: of the macroscopical automata simulating the behaviour of
63: some quantum systems considered earlier
64: in~\cite{GrRZ1,GrRZ2}. A special feature of the game
65: considered is that the players acts go in contradiction
66: with the usual logic. The consequence is breaking of the
67: classical probability interpretation of the mixed strategy:
68: the sum of the probabilities for alternate outcomes may be
69: larger than one. The cause of breaking of the basic
70: property of the probability is in the {\it
71: non-distributivity of the logic}. The partners relations
72: are such that the disjunction "or", conjunction "and" and
73: the operation of negation do not form a Boolean algebra
74: but an orthocomplemented non-distributive lattice. However
75: this ortholattice happens to be just that which describes
76: some properties of a quantum system with spin one half.
77: This leads to new "quantum" rules for the calculations of
78: the average profit and new representation of the mixed
79: strategy, the role of which is played by the "wave
80: function" -- the normalized vector in a finite dimensional
81: Hilbert space. Calculations of probabilities are made
82: according to the standard rules of quantum mechanics.
83: Differently from the examples of quantum games considered
84: in~\cite{Eisert,Ekert,Marinatto} where the "quantum" nature
85: of the game was conditioned by the microparticles or
86: quantum computers based on them,in our case we deal with a
87: {\it macroscopic} game, the quantum nature of which has
88: nothing to do with microparticles. This gives the hope that
89: our example is one of many analogous situations in biology,
90: economics etc where the formalism of quantum mechanics can
91: be used.
92:
93: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
94: The game "Wise Alice" formulated in our paper is a
95: modification of the well known game when each of the
96: participants names one of some previously considered
97: objects. In the case if the results differ, one of the
98: players wins from the other some agreed sum of money. The
99: participants of our game A and B, call them Alice and Bob
100: have a quadratic box in which a ball is located. Bob puts
101: his ball in one of the corners of the box but doesn't tell
102: his partner which corner.
103:
104: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
105: \begin{figure}[ht]
106: \begin{center}
107: \begin{picture}(100,130)
108: \linethickness{1pt}
109:
110: \put(25,115){\circle{15}}
111: \put(80,115){\vector(-1,0){30}}
112:
113: \put(0,110){\bf 1} \put(100,110){\bf 2} \put(100,15){\bf 3}
114: \put(0,15){\bf 4}
115:
116: \linethickness{2pt}
117:
118: \put(-16,130){\line(1,0){132}} \put(-16,0){\line(1,0){132}}
119: \put(-15,0){\line(0,1){130}} \put(115,0){\line(0,1){130}}
120: \end{picture}
121: \end{center}
122: \vspace{-15pt}\caption{\em Bob's ball moves into the place
123: asked by Alice} \label{fig1}
124: \end{figure}
125: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
126:
127: \noindent Alice must guess in which corner Bob has put his
128: ball. The rules of the game are such that Alice can ask Bob
129: questions supposing the two-valued answer: "yes" or "no".
130: It is supposed that Bob is honest and always tells the
131: truth. In the case of a "yes" answer Alice is satisfied, in
132: the opposite case she asks Bob to pay her some
133: compensation. However, differently from other such
134: games~\cite{Moulin,Owen} the rules of this game (see
135: Figure~\ref{fig1}) have one specific feature: {\it Bob has
136: the possibility to move the ball to any of the adjacent
137: vertices of the square after Alice asks her question.} This
138: additional condition decisively changes the behaviour of
139: Bob, making him to become active under the influence of
140: Alice's questions. Due to the fact that negative answers
141: are not profitable for him he, in all possible cases, moves
142: his ball to the convenient adjacent vertex.
143:
144: So being in vertices 2 or 4 and getting from Alice the
145: question "Are you in the vertex 1?" Bob quickly puts his
146: ball in the asked vertex and honestly answers"yes".
147: However, if the Bob's ball was initially in the vertex 3 he
148: cannot escape the negative answer notwithstanding to what
149: vertex he moves his ball and he fails. One must pay
150: attention that in this case Alice not only gets the profit
151: but also obtains the {\it exact information} on the initial
152: position of the ball: Bob's honest answer immediately
153: reveals his initial position. The interaction of our
154: players can be described by a four on four matrix
155: $~(h_{ik})~$ representing payoffs of Alice in each of the
156: 16 possible game situations
157: \begin{table}[h]
158: \begin{center}
159: %\large
160: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
161: \hline $A \backslash B$ & {\bf 1} & {\bf 2} & {\bf 3} &
162: {\bf 4} \\ \hline\hline
163: {\bf ~1~} & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~a~ & ~0~ \\ \hline
164: {\bf ~2~} & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~b~ \\ \hline
165: {\bf ~3~} & ~c~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ \\ \hline
166: {\bf ~4~} & ~0~ & ~d~ & ~0~ & ~0~ \\ \hline
167: \end{tabular}
168: \end{center}\caption{\em The Payoff-matrix of Alice}\label{h1}
169: \end{table}
170: \noindent where $~a,b,c,d>0~$ are her payoffs in those
171: situations when Bob cannot answer her questions
172: affirmatively. Our game is an antagonistic game,so the
173: payoff matrix of Bob is the opposite to that of Alice:
174: $(-h_{ik})$. The main problem of game theory is to find
175: so-called {\it points of equilibrium or saddle points} --
176: game situations, optimal for all players at once. It is
177: easy to see that the classical game with our payoff matrix
178: does not have such equilibrium points. Nonexistence of the
179: saddle point follows from the strict inequality valid for
180: our game $$\max_{j}\min_{k}h_{jk}< \min_{k}\max_{j}h_{jk}$$
181: So there are no stable strategies to follow for Bob and
182: Alice in each {\it separate} turn of the game. In spite of
183: the absence of a rational choice at each turn of the game,
184: when the game is repeated many times some optimal lines of
185: behaviour can be found. To find them in the theory of
186: classical games one must, following von
187: Neumann~\cite{Neumann}, look for the so called mixed
188: generalization of the game. The optimal mixed strategies
189: for Alice and Bob are defined as such probability
190: distributions on the sets of pure strategies
191: $x^0=(x^0_1,x^0_2,x^0_3,x^0_4 )$ and
192: $y^0=(y^0_1,y^0_2,y^0_3,y^0_4)$ that for all distributions
193: of $~x, y~$ the von Neumann-Nash inequalities are valid:
194: \begin{equation}\label{NE}
195: {\cal H}_A (x^0,y^0)\geq{\cal H}_A (x,y^0)\,,\qquad {\cal H}_B
196: (x^0,y^0)\geq{\cal H}_B (x^0,y),
197: \end{equation}
198: where { \it$~\cal{H}_{A},\cal{H}_{B}~$ -- payoff functions}
199: of Alice and Bob are the expectation values of their wins
200: $${\cal H}_A(x,y) = \sum_{j,k=1}^{4}{h_{jk} x_j y_k}\,,
201: \qquad {\cal H}_B(x,y) = -\sum_{j,k=1}^{4}{h_{jk}x_j y_k}$$
202: The combination of strategies, satisfying the von
203: Neumann-Nash inequalities, is called {\it the situation of
204: equilibrium} in Nash's sense. However in the case of our
205: game the logic of behaviour of the players is such that
206: usual classical theory does not work. To see this consider
207: Hasse diagram (Fig.~\ref{fig3}) where to atoms correspond
208: different possibilities for Bob from the point of view of
209: Alice when she pays attention only to his negative
210: answers.One has the special structure of disjunction so
211: that for example 1 or 2 is true when 1 true or 2 true but
212: not always true.
213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
214: \begin{figure}[ht]
215: \begin{center}
216: \begin{picture}(120,120)
217: \put(45,94){\circle*{4}} \put(43,105){I}
218: \put(0,50){\circle*{3}} \put(-10,55){1}
219: \put(30,50){\circle*{3}} \put(25,55){2}
220: \put(60,50){\circle*{3}} \put(65,55){3}
221: \put(90,50){\circle*{3}} \put(95,55){4}
222: \put(45,6){\circle*{4}} \put(42,-10){O}
223: \put(0,50){\line(1,1){45}} \put(0,50){\line(1,-1){45}}
224: \put(90,50){\line(-1,1){45}} \put(90,50){\line(-1,-1){45}}
225: \put(30,50){\line(1,3){15}} \put(30,50){\line(1,-3){15}}
226: \put(60,50){\line(-1,3){15}} \put(60,50){\line(-1,-3){15}}
227: \end{picture}
228: \end{center}
229: %\vspace{-5pt}
230: \caption{\em Lattice of Alice's questions and
231: Bob's answers} \label{fig3}
232: \end{figure}
233: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
234: \noindent If one considers all outcomes equally possible,
235: then the probability of the always true event, i.e.
236: disjunction of any of two events occurs to be one half! The
237: distributivity property is broken. So a classical
238: probabilistic description of the behaviour of the players
239: in the repeated game is impossible in principle.
240:
241: The solution for the situation arising is given by the
242: ideas of quantum mechanics. Following A.A.Grib and
243: R.R.Zapatrin~{\cite{GrRZ1} we pay attention to the fact
244: that the ortholattice of the logic of interaction of
245: partners of the "Wise Alice" is isomorphic to the
246: ortholattice of invariant subspaces of the Hilbert space of
247: the quantum system with spin $\frac{1}{2}$ and observables
248: of the type of $S_x$ $S_\theta$. As it is well known one
249: can represent this lattice by considering on the plane two
250: pairs of mutually orthogonal direct lines $\{a_1; a_3\}$,
251: $\{a_2; a_4\}$. One of these pairs makes diagonal the
252: operator $S_x$, the other $S_\theta$. If one takes as
253: representations of logical conjunction and disjunction
254: their intersection and linear envelope and if negation
255: corresponds to the orthogonal complement one obtains the
256: ortholattice isomorphic to the logic of our players. We
257: saw that in one "experiment" neither Alice nor Bob have a
258: stable strategy. However if the game is repeated many times
259: one can ask about optimal frequencies of the corresponding
260: pure strategies. Due to the non-distributivity of the logic
261: it is impossible to define on the sets $S_A$ and $S_B$ of
262: pure strategies a probabilistic measure. The main problem
263: is calculation of an adequate {\it procedure of averaging}.
264: Following well known constructions of quantum mechanics we
265: take instead of the sets of pure strategies of Alice and
266: Bob $S_A, S_B$ the pair of two-dimensional Hilbert spaces
267: $H_A, H_B$. So {\it pure strategies} are represented by
268: one-dimensional subspaces or {\it normalized vectors} of
269: Hilbert space (wave functions). Use of Hilbert space
270: permits us without any difficulties to realize the
271: non-distributive logic of our players. So the average
272: payoff for the given types of behaviour of the players:
273: $$E_{\varphi\otimes\psi}\widehat{{\cal H}}_A
274: =\sum_{j,k=1}^{4}{h_{jk}
275: \langle\widehat{\alpha}_j\varphi,\, \varphi\rangle \cdot
276: \langle\widehat{\beta}_k\psi,\, \psi\rangle }$$ Putting
277: into this formula the elements of our payoff matrix and
278: using the notations
279: \mbox{$~p_j=\langle\widehat{\alpha}_j\varphi,\,\varphi\rangle~$},
280: $~q_k=\langle\widehat{\beta}_k\psi,\,\psi\rangle~$ one
281: obtains
282: \begin{equation}\label{Hquant}
283: E_{\varphi\otimes\psi}\widehat{{\cal H}}_A =ap_1 q_3 +cp_3
284: q_1 + bp_2 q_4 + dp_4 q_2
285: \end{equation}
286: The definition of the Nash equilibrium for the quantum case
287: is not much different from the classical case~(\ref{NE})
288: and can be written as $$E\widehat{{\cal H}}_A
289: (\varphi^0,\psi^0)\geq E\widehat{{\cal H}}_A
290: (\varphi,\psi^0),\qquad E\widehat{{\cal H}}_B
291: (\varphi^0,\psi^0)\geq E\widehat{{\cal H}}_B
292: (\varphi^0,\psi)$$ It is convenient to find the equilibrium
293: points in the coordinate form. To do this let us fix in the
294: space of strategies of Alice $~H_A~$ eigenbasis $\{\xi_1^+,
295: \xi_1^-\}$ ¨ $ \{\xi_2^+, \xi_2^-\}$ corresponding to two
296: projectors $\widehat{\alpha}_1, \widehat{\alpha}_2$ and let
297: us do the same for Bob, taking bases $\{\eta_1^+,
298: \eta_1^-\}$ ¨ $ \{\eta_2^+, \eta_2^-\}$. The angles between
299: the largest eigenvectors denote as $\theta_A$ and
300: $\theta_B$. Then one can write in the quantum payoff
301: function $$E\widehat{{\cal H}}_A({\varphi, \psi}) =ap_1 q_3
302: +cp_3 q_1 + bp_2 q_4 + dp_4 q_2 $$ the squares of moduli of
303: the amplitudes $~p_j,p_k~$ as $$ p_1=\cos^2\alpha,\quad
304: p_3=\sin^2\alpha,\quad p_2=\cos^2(\alpha-\theta_A),\quad
305: p_4=\sin^2(\alpha-\theta_A), $$
306: $$q_1=\cos^2\beta,\quad q_3=\sin^2\beta,\quad
307: q_2=\cos^2(\beta-\theta_B),\quad q_4=\sin^2(\beta-\theta_B),$$
308: where $\alpha$ ¨ $\beta$ are the angles of vectors
309: $\varphi, \psi$ to the corresponding axises. For values of
310: angles one can take the interval $[0^0; 180^0]$. In the
311: result the problem of search of the equilibrium points of
312: the quantum game became the problem of finding a minimax of
313: the function of two angle variables $$F(\alpha, \beta)=
314: a\cos^2\alpha \sin^2\beta +c\sin^2\alpha \cos^2\beta +$$
315: $$+b\cos^2(\alpha-\theta_A) \sin^2(\beta-\theta_B) +
316: d\sin^2(\alpha-\theta_A) \cos^2(\beta-\theta_B)$$ on the
317: square $[0^0; 180^0]\times[0^0; 180^0]$. Differently from
318: the geometrical saddle points the conditions of the Nash
319: equilibrium are not just putting to zero values of the
320: corresponding partial derivatives. So in the situation of
321: absence of simple analytical solutions one must look for
322: numerical methods. To do calculations we use an algorithm
323: based on the construction of "curves of reaction" or
324: "curves of the best answers" of the participants of the
325: game. The definition of curves of reaction is based on the
326: following consideration. If Alice knew what decision Bob
327: will take she could make an {\it optimal} choice. But the
328: essence of the game situation is that she doesn't know
329: it.She must take into account his different strategies and
330: on each possible act of the partner she must find the
331: optimal way to act. Her considerations look like
332: considerations of the player,expressed by the formula: "if
333: he does this, then I shall do that". Bob thinks the same
334: way. So one must consider two functions, $$\alpha = {\cal
335: R}_A (\beta)\quad \mbox{and}\quad \beta = {\cal R}_B
336: (\alpha)$$ the plots of which are called the curves of
337: reactions of Alice and Bob. Due to the definition of these
338: functions $$\max_{\lambda} F(\lambda,\, \beta)= F({\cal
339: R}_A (\beta),\, \beta), \quad \min_{\mu} F(\alpha,\,
340: \mu)=F(\alpha,\, {\cal R}_B (\alpha))$$ It is easy to see
341: that intersections of curves of reaction give points of
342: Nash equilibrium. Numerical experiments show that dependent
343: on the values of the parameters $~a,b,c,d~$of the payoff
344: function and the angles characterizing the type of
345: player one has qualitatively different pictures.
346: Intersections can be absent, there can be one intersection
347: and lastly there can be the case with two equilibrium
348: points with different values of the payoff of the game,
349: which is absent in the case of the classical matrix game.
350:
351: {\bf 1. \em Two equilibrium} points arise in the case of
352: the payoff matrix
353: \begin{table}[h]\label{h2}
354: \begin{center}
355: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|}
356: \hline $A \backslash B$ & {\bf 1} & {\bf 2} & {\bf 3} &
357: {\bf 4} \\ \hline\hline
358: {\bf ~1~} & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~3~ & ~0~ \\ \hline
359: {\bf ~2~} & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~3~ \\ \hline
360: {\bf ~3~} & ~5~ & ~0~ & ~0~ & ~0~ \\ \hline
361: {\bf ~4~} & ~0~ & ~1~ & ~0~ & ~0~ \\ \hline
362: \end{tabular}
363: \end{center}
364: \end{table}
365: and an operator representation of the ortholattice
366: corresponding to angles $\theta_A=10^0$, $\theta_B=70^0$.
367: One of the equilibrium points is inside the square, the
368: other one is on it's boundary (see~Fig.~\ref{fig5}). The
369: curves of reaction in this case happen to be {\it
370: discontinuous}. For convenience the discontinuities are
371: shown by thin lines. The discontinuous character of the
372: curve of reaction of Alice made it impossible for one more
373: equilibrium point to occur.
374: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
375: \begin{figure}[ht]
376: \begin{center}
377: \includegraphics[height=0.48\textwidth]{fi5.ps}
378: \end{center}
379: \vspace{-15pt} \caption{\em Two points of Nash equilibrium}
380: \label{fig5}
381: \end{figure}
382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
383: One of the equilibrium takes place for
384: $\alpha=145,5^0$,$\beta=149,5^0$ and gives the following
385: values for the squares of moduli of amplitudes:
386: \begin{center}
387: for Alice $p_1=0,679;\, p_2=0,509;\, p_3=0,321;\,
388: p_4=0,491;$
389:
390: for Bob $q_1=0,258;\, q_2=0,967;\, q_3=0,742;\,
391: q_4=0,033.$
392: \end{center}
393: \noindent The price of the quantum game, i.e. the
394: equilibrium value of the profit for Alice in this case is
395: equal to $~E\widehat{\cal H}_A=2.452~$. The second
396: equilibrium point corresponds to angles $\alpha=180^0$,
397: $\beta=123,5^0$ and the squares of the amplitude moduli
398: \begin{center}
399: for Alice $p_1=1.000; p_2=0,967; p_3=0.000; p_4=0.033;$
400:
401: for Bob $q_1=0,695;q_2=0.646;q_3=0.305;q_4=0.354.$
402: \end{center}
403: \noindent The price of the game in the second equilibrium
404: point is equal to $~E\widehat{\cal H}_A=1.926~$.
405:
406: {\bf 2. \em A unique equilibrium} is observed for example
407: in the case when all nonzero payoffs are equal and are
408: equal to one and for equal angles $\theta_A=45^0$,
409: $\theta_B=45^0$. The equilibrium point is located in the
410: upper right vertex of the square (see Fig.~\ref{fig6}):
411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
412: \begin{figure}[ht]
413: \begin{center}
414: \includegraphics[height=0.48\textwidth]{fi6.ps}
415: \end{center}
416: \vspace{-15pt} \caption{\em The unique Nash equilibrium}
417: \label{fig6}
418: \end{figure}
419: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
420: The curve of Bob's reaction is shown on the Fig.~\ref{fig6}
421: as {\it continuous} while the analogous curve of Alice is
422: discontinuous when Bob is using the strategy corresponding
423: to the angle $\beta=90^0$. To make it more explicit the
424: discontinuity is shown by drawing the thin line. In reality
425: {\it both} lines are discontinuous. This becomes evident if
426: one prolongs both functions on the whole real axis taking
427: into account the periodicity: the plots of one of them is
428: obtained by the shift of the other one on the halfperiod --
429: $90^0$. The squares of the amplitude moduli in this case
430: have the following values
431: \begin{center}
432: for Alice: $~p_1=1~$; $~p_2=0.5~$; $~p_3=0~$; $~p_4=0.5~$;
433:
434: for Bob: $~q_1=1~$; $~q_2=0.5~$; $~q_3=0~$; $~q_4=0.5~$.
435: \end{center}
436: \noindent The payoff of the "wise" Alice in this case is
437: $~E\widehat {\cal H}_A=0.5~$.The unique equilibrium located
438: {\it inside} the square takes place for the initial payoff
439: matrix $a~=~3$,\; $b~=~3$,\; $c~=~5$,\; $d~=~1$ and angles
440: $\theta_A=15^0$, $\theta_B=35^0$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig7}).
441:
442: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
443: \begin{figure}[ht]
444: \begin{center}
445: \includegraphics[height=0.48\textwidth]{fi7.ps}
446: \end{center}
447: \vspace{-15pt} \caption{\em The other example of the unique
448: Nash equilibrium} \label{fig7}
449: \end{figure}
450: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
451:
452:
453: \noindent {\bf 3. \em Absence of equilibrium} is perhaps
454: one of the most interesting phenomena, because as it is
455: known for classical matrix games, equilibrium in mixed
456: strategies always exist. One can obtain absence of
457: equilibrium by taking the same payoff matrix for which one
458: as well as two points of equilibrium were found. For this
459: it is sufficient to take the operator representation of the
460: ortholattice with typical angles: $\theta_A=30^0$,
461: $\theta_B=20^0$.
462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
463: \begin{figure}[ht]
464: \begin{center}
465: \includegraphics[height=0.48\textwidth]{fi8.ps}
466: \end{center}
467: \vspace{-15pt} \caption{\em Absence of Nash equilibrium}
468: \label{fig8}
469: \end{figure}
470: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
471: Absence of equilibrium in this case as it is seen from the
472: Fig.~\ref{fig8} is due to the discontinuity of the
473: functions of reaction which is impossible in the classical
474: case.We met this phenomenon in the first example when two
475: equilibrium points were obtained. This last example shows
476: the importance of the {\it realization} of a
477: nondistributive lattice. In the language of the game theory
478: one can understand it as follows: having the same interests
479: the players can form their behaviour qualitatively in
480: different ways. So the mathematician can give to the
481: client, for example to Alice, strategic recommendations:
482: how she can organize the style of her behaviour to make the
483: profit larger for the same payoff conditions. For this,
484: however, he must know the choice of the representation of
485: Bob's logic.
486:
487: \section*{Acknowledgements}
488: One of the authors (A.A.G.) is indebted to the Foundation
489: of the Ministry of Education of Russia, grant E0-00-14 for
490: the financial support of this work.
491: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
492:
493: \medskip
494: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
495:
496: \bibitem{Gribook}{\em Grib A.A.} Breaking of Bell's
497: inequalities and theproblem of measurement in the quantum
498: theory. Lectures for young scientists (in Russian).JINR,
499: Dubna, (1992).
500:
501:
502: \bibitem{Waldir}{\em Grib A.A., Rodrigues Jr.W.A.}
503: Nonlocality in Quantum Physics. Kluwer Academic // Plenum
504: Publishers. N.Y., Boston, Dodrecht, London, Moscow, (1999).
505:
506: \bibitem{GrRZ1}{\em Grib A.A., Zapatrin R.R.}
507: Int. Journ. Theor. Phys. {\bf 29} (2), (1990), p.113.
508:
509: \bibitem{GrRZ2}{\em Grib A.A., Zapatrin R.R.}
510: Int. Journ. Theor. Phys. {\bf 30} (7), (1991), p.949.
511:
512:
513:
514:
515: \bibitem{Eisert}{\em Eisert J. et all} Phys. Rev. Lett.
516: {\bf 83}, (1999), p.3077.
517:
518: \bibitem{Ekert}{\em Ekert A.K.} Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 67},
519: (1999), p.661.
520:
521: \bibitem{Marinatto}{\em Marinatto L., Weber T.} Phys.
522: Lett. A {\bf 272}, (2000), p.291.
523:
524: \bibitem{Moulin}{\em Moulin H.} Th\'eorie des jeux
525: pour l'\'economie et la politique. --- Hermann, Paris,
526: (1981).
527:
528: \bibitem{Owen}{\em Owen G.} Game Theory. --- W.B.Saunders
529: Company, Philadelphia, London, Toronto, (1968).
530:
531: \bibitem{Neumann}{\em von Neumann J., Morgenstern O.}
532: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. --- Princeton.
533: Princeton Univ. Press, (1953).
534:
535: \bibitem{Birkhoff}{\em Birkhoff G.} Lattice Theory ---
536: AMS Colloc. Publ., vol. 25, AMS, Providence, Rhode, Island,
537: (1993).
538:
539:
540:
541: \bibitem{GriParf}{\em Grib A.A., Parfionov G.N.} Can the
542: game be quantum? --- http://arXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0206178
543: (2002)
544:
545: \end{thebibliography}
546: \end{document}
547: