We study an N-player game where a pure action of each player is to select a nonnegative function on a Polish space supporting a finite diffuse measure, subject to a finite constraint on the integral of the function. This function is used to define the intensity of a Poisson point process on the Polish space. The processes are independent over the players, and the value to a player is the measure of the union of her open Voronoi cells in the superposition point process. Under randomized strategies, the process of points of a player is thus a Cox process, and the nature of competition between the players is akin to that in Hotelling competition games. We characterize when such a game admits Nash equilibria and prove that when a Nash equilibrium exists, it is unique and consists of pure strategies that are proportional in the same proportions as the total intensities. We give examples of such games where Nash equilibria do not exist. A better understanding of the criterion for the existence of Nash equilibria remains an intriguing open problem.

This article presents two theorems: (1) a generalization of Löb’s Theorem that applies to formal proof systems operating with bounded computational resources, such as formal verification software or theorem provers, and (2) a theorem on the robust cooperation of agents that employ proofs about one another’s source code as unexploitable criteria for cooperation. The latter illustrates a capacity for outperforming classical Nash equilibria and correlated equilibria, attaining mutually cooperative program equilibrium in the Prisoner’s Dilemma while remaining unexploitable, i.e., sometimes achieving the outcome (Cooperate, Cooperate), and never receiving the outcome (Cooperate, Defect) as player 1.

In a two-person red-and-black game, each player holds an integral amount of chips. At each stage of the game, each player can bet any integral amount in his possession, winning the chips of his opponent with a probability which is a function of the ratio of his bet to the sum of both players' bets and is called a win probability function. Both players seek to maximize the probability of winning the entire fortune of his opponent. In this paper we propose two new models. In the first model, at each stage, there is a positive probability that two players exchange their bets. In the second model, the win probability functions are stage dependent. In both models, we obtain suitable conditions on the win probability functions such that it is a Nash equilibrium for the subfair player to play boldly and for the superfair player to play timidly.

In this paper we investigate a class of N-person nonconstant sum red-and-black games with bet-dependent win probability functions. We assume that N players and a gambling house are engaged in a game played in stages, where the player's probability of winning at each stage is a function f of the ratio of his bet to the sum of all the players' bets. However, at each stage of the game there is a positive probability that all the players lose and the gambling house wins their bets. We prove that if the win probability function is super-additive and it satisfies f(s)f(t)≤f(st), then a bold strategy is optimal for all players.

In this paper a two-person red-and-black game is investigated. We suppose that, at every stage of the game, player I's win probability, f, is a function of the ratio of his bet to the sum of both players' bets. Two results are given: (i) if f is convex then a bold strategy is optimal for player I when player II plays timidly; and (ii) if f satisfies f(s)f(t) ≤ f(st) then a timid strategy is optimal for player II when player I plays boldly. These two results extend two formulations of red-and-black games proposed by Pontiggia (2005), and also provide a sufficient condition to ensure that the profile (bold, timid) is the unique Nash equilibrium for players I and II. Finally, we give a counterexample to Pontiggia's conjecture about a proportional N-person red-and-black game.