To illustrate how iterated best response reasoning works in a simple (cooperative) case, let us look briefly at numerical expressions again.
For system (1.2) in the two-dimensional cooperative case, an example was given by Hofbauer et al. [3] to show that system (1.2) may not be permanent.
Although, for a fair comparison, for the cooperative case we will consider the energy spent by both the phones.
The government's lead investigator on the five-year Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative case, the Internal Revenue Service special agent Jeff Novitzky, sat erect in the front of the courtroom watching Bonds.
The authors conducted more than 200 interviews and used grand jury testimony from the Balco (Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative) case.
For the high-dimensional cooperative case, the technique developed in [4, 6] cannot easily be extended, Wei et al. [7] gave an incomplete result of non-permanence for system (1.2) in the n-species cooperative case.
For system (1.4) in the cooperative case, the permanence result was left unsolved in [10].
Success probability for the noncooperative caseEnergy consumption for the noncooperative caseSuccess probability for the cooperative caseEnergy consumption for the cooperative case.
The operating point for the cooperative case was determined by numerically finding the power allocation that yields the highest sum utility.
Moreover, the method of the Nehari manifold, which is extensively used in the cooperative case does not apply in this situation.
