Table of Contents
Fetching ...

The topology of simple games

Ismar Volic, Leah Valentiner

TL;DR

This paper forges a bridge between simple game theory and combinatorial topology by identifying losing coalitions with a simplicial complex $K_{\mathcal{L}}$ on $N$. It builds a dictionary translating notions such as duality, sums/products, and restrictions into topological constructions (Alexander duality, joins, cones, maps) and invariants (homology), and proves a key homology-based characterization of symmetric weighted games: a simple game with $n$ players and quota $q$ is symmetric iff $\beta_i(K_{\mathcal{L}}) = {n \choose q}$ for $i=q-2$ and $0$ otherwise. The results recover known game-theoretic facts via topology and provide new insights, such as homology-based criteria for weighted-symmetric cases. The work lays a foundation for further exploration, including category-theoretic formulations and hypergraph extensions, connecting game theory with topology in potentially fruitful ways.

Abstract

We initiate the study of simple games from the point of view of combinatorial topology. The starting premise is that the losing coalitions of a simple game can be identified with a simplicial complex. Various topological constructions and results from the theory of simplicial complexes then carry over to the setting of simple games. Examples are cone, join, and the Alexander dual, each of which have interpretations as familiar game-theoretic objects. We also provide some new topological results about simple games, most notably in applications of homology of simplicial complexes to weighted simple games. The exposition is introductory and largely self-contained, intended to inspire further work and point to what appears to be a wealth of potentially fruitful directions of investigation bridging game theory and topology.

The topology of simple games

TL;DR

This paper forges a bridge between simple game theory and combinatorial topology by identifying losing coalitions with a simplicial complex on . It builds a dictionary translating notions such as duality, sums/products, and restrictions into topological constructions (Alexander duality, joins, cones, maps) and invariants (homology), and proves a key homology-based characterization of symmetric weighted games: a simple game with players and quota is symmetric iff for and otherwise. The results recover known game-theoretic facts via topology and provide new insights, such as homology-based criteria for weighted-symmetric cases. The work lays a foundation for further exploration, including category-theoretic formulations and hypergraph extensions, connecting game theory with topology in potentially fruitful ways.

Abstract

We initiate the study of simple games from the point of view of combinatorial topology. The starting premise is that the losing coalitions of a simple game can be identified with a simplicial complex. Various topological constructions and results from the theory of simplicial complexes then carry over to the setting of simple games. Examples are cone, join, and the Alexander dual, each of which have interpretations as familiar game-theoretic objects. We also provide some new topological results about simple games, most notably in applications of homology of simplicial complexes to weighted simple games. The exposition is introductory and largely self-contained, intended to inspire further work and point to what appears to be a wealth of potentially fruitful directions of investigation bridging game theory and topology.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 18 sections, 9 theorems, 28 equations, 2 figures.

Key Result

Proposition 2.10

A simple game $G$ is constant sum if and only if it is self-dual, namely if $G=G^*$.

Figures (2)

  • Figure 1: The geometric realization of the simplicial complex from Example .
  • Figure 2: The geometric realization of the simplicial complex from Example . The red tetrahedron is solid. The blue faces are 2-simplices and only intersect at common vertices and edges.

Theorems & Definitions (42)

  • Definition 2.1
  • Definition 2.2
  • Example 2.3
  • Definition 2.4
  • Example 2.5
  • Definition 2.6
  • Definition 2.7
  • Definition 2.8
  • Definition 2.9
  • Proposition 2.10
  • ...and 32 more