PHASE 4 - SOLVE PROBLEMS BY APPLYING THE ALGORITHMS OF UNIT 2

Activity

JESSICA MARIA CANO

CAROL YANETH PASTRANA
Student

RICARDO JAVIER PINEDA

Tutor

TEORIA DE LAS DECISIONES 212066_25

Course

UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL ABIERTA Y A DISTANCIA (UNAD)

October - 2019
 INTRODUCTION

The theory of decisions and the theory of games become the options that are represented in
the questions that arise in the future. about these branches of research.
In the work carried out, a series of technical strategies are used, which answer the questions
of uncertainty regarding what is appropriate. For this, the descriptions of several companies
are taken into account in a context as shown and the answer is given to what they ask for,
through the appropriate use of the theory of decisions and also of the theory of games.
EXERCISE 1. LAPLACE, WALD OR PESSIMISTIC, OPTIMISTIC, HURWICZ
AND SAVAGE CRITERIA (PROFIT MATRIX):

In the company ABC several alternatives are presented to choose the best technology of four
possible, whose performance depends on the adaptation of the workers who will manipulate
the equipments that comprise it. The expected benefits of each alternative and degree of
adaptation of the workers are given in the table, in millions of pesos ($). For Hurwicz please
assume an alpha of 0,7.

LAPLACE

2118 + 2168 + 2213 + 2265 + 2330

𝑉𝑴𝑻𝒆𝒄𝒉𝒏𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚 𝟏 = = 2218.8
5
2109 + 2158 + 2245 + 2252 + 2328
𝑽𝑴𝑻𝒆𝒄𝒉𝒏𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚 𝟐 = = 2218.4
5
2145 + 2177 + 2232 + 2256 + 2303
𝑽𝑴𝑻𝒆𝒄𝒉𝒏𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚 𝟑 = = 2222.6
5
2130 + 2166 + 2206 + 2255 + 2322
𝑽𝑴𝑻𝒆𝒄𝒉𝒏𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚 𝟒 = = 2215.8
5
2128 + 2165 + 2213 + 2275 + 2335
𝑽𝑴𝑻𝒆𝒄𝒉𝒏𝒐𝒍𝒐𝒈𝒚 𝟓 = = 2223.2
5
Being this equiprobable method, I take the highest value (row 5), because it represents the
greatest utility.

WALD OR PESSIMISTIC
I take the highest value (row 3), because it represents me more useful

OPTIMISTIC

I choose technology 5 because it gives me the greatest utility

HURWICZ

𝐴1 = 2330 ∗ 0.7 + 2118 ∗ (1 − 0.7) = 2264.4

𝐴2 = 2328 ∗ 0.7 + 2109 ∗ (1 – 0.7) = 2262.3
𝐴3 = 2303 ∗ 0.7 + 2145 ∗ (1 – 0.7) = 2255.6
𝐴4 = 2322 ∗ 0.7 + 2130 ∗ (1 – 0.7) = 2264.4
𝐴5 = 2335 ∗ 0.7 + 2128 ∗ (1 – 0.7) = 2272.9

Technology 5 is taken.

SAVAGE

𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟓 − 2118 = 27 ∗ 𝟐𝟏𝟕𝟕 − 2168 = 9 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟒𝟓 − 2213 = 32 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟕𝟓 − 2265

= 10 ∗ 𝟐𝟑𝟑𝟓 − 2330 = 5
𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟓 − 2109 = 36 ∗ 𝟐𝟏𝟕𝟕 − 2158 = 19 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟒𝟓 − 2245 = 0 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟕𝟓 − 2252 = 23 ∗ 𝟐𝟑𝟑𝟓 − 2328
=7
2145 − 2145 = 0 ∗ 𝟐𝟏𝟕𝟕 − 2177 = 0 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟒𝟓 − 2232 = 13 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟕𝟓 − 2256 = 19 ∗ 𝟐𝟑𝟑𝟓 − 230
= 32
𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟓 − 2130 = 15 ∗ 𝟐𝟏𝟕𝟕 − 2166 = 11 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟒𝟓 − 2206 = 39 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟕𝟓 − 2255 = 20 ∗ 𝟐𝟑𝟑𝟓 − 232
= 13
𝟐𝟏𝟒𝟓 − 2128 = 17 ∗ 𝟐𝟏𝟕𝟕 − 2165 = 12 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟒𝟓 − 2213 = 32 ∗ 𝟐𝟐𝟕𝟓 − 2275 = 0 ∗ 𝟐𝟑𝟓 − 𝟐𝟑𝟑𝟓
=0

Being a cost matrix I choose the lowest value

Exercise 2. Criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage
(Cost matrix):
A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan
its level of supply to satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship.
The exact number of crates is not known, but is expected to fall into one of five categories:
610, 630, 680, 715 and 730 crates. There are therefore four levels of supply. The deviation
from the number of hoppers is expected to result in additional costs, either due to excessive
supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below shows the costs in hundreds of
dollars (US $). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,75.

According to Table 2 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic

criteria, Hurwicz and Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit
criteria.

LAPLACE

P(J ) (1/5) (1/5) (1/5) (1/5) (1/5) VM

ALTERNATIVE E1(610) E2(630) E3(680) E4(715) E5(730)
E1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332 2229
E2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315 2217.6
E3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317 2227.4
E4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331 2228.2
E5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329 2233.6
Being this equiprobable method, I take the highest value (row 2), because it represents the
greatest utility

WALD OR PESSIMISTIC

ALTERNATIVE E1(610) E2(630) E3(680) E4(715) E5(730) RESULTS

E1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332 2332
E2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315 2315
E3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317 2317
E4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331 2331
 E5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329 2329

I take the highest value (row 2), because it represents me more useful
.

OPTIMISTIC

ALTERNATIVE E1(610) E2(630) E3(680) E4(715) E5(730) RESULTS

E1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332 2109
E2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315 2112
E3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317 2137
E4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331 2110
E5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329 2136
Row 1 is chosen because it is where the greatest utility is presented.

HURWICZ

ALTERNATIV
E E1(610) E2(630) E3(680) E4(715) E5(730) RESULTS
E1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332 2164,75
E2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315 2162,75
E3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317 2182
E4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331 2165,25
E5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329 2184,25

The highest value is chosen, to take into account the greatest utility.

SAVAGE

ALTERNATIVE E1(610) E2(630) E3(680) E4(715) E5(730) RESULTS

E1(610)
0 45 8 0 17 45
E2(630) 3 0 0 10 0 10
E3(680) 28 16 12 4 2 28
E4(715) 1 24 10 15 16 24
E5(730) 27 26 15 16 14 27
Being a cost matrix I choose the lowest value
Exercise 3. Criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic, Hurwicz and Savage
(Cost matrix):

A warehouse of finished products that leases its services to imports from the USA, must plan
its level of supply to satisfy the demand of its customers in the day of love and friendship.
The exact number of crates is not known, but is expected to fall into one of five categories:
580, 720, 750, 790 and 830 crates. There are therefore four levels of supply. The deviation
from the number of hoppers is expected to result in additional costs, either due to excessive
supplies or because demand can not be met. The table below shows the costs in hundreds of
dollars (US $). For Hurwicz please assume an alpha of 0,55.

According to Table 3 by applying the criteria of Laplace, Wald or pessimistic, optimistic

criteria, Hurwicz and Savage determine the optimal decision level according to the benefit
criteria.
LAPLACE

P(J ) (1/5) (1/5) (1/5) (1/5) (1/5) VM

ALTERNATIVE E1(610) E2(630) E3(680) E4(715) E5(730)
E1(610) 1147 1152 1238 1283 1311 1226.2
E2(630) 1109 1193 1222 1298 1314 1227.2
E3(680) 1106 1181 1245 1281 1346 1231.8
E4(715) 1134 1177 1249 1276 1349 1237
E5(730) 1149 1197 1248 1260 1328 1236.4
Being this equiprobable method, I take the highest value (row 1), because it represents the
greatest utility

WALD OR PESSIMISTIC

ALTERNATIVE E1(610) E2(630) E3(680) E4(715) E5(730) RESULTS

E1(610) 1147 1152 1238 1283 1311 1311
E2(630) 1109 1193 1222 1298 1314 1314
E3(680) 1106 1181 1245 1281 1346 1346
E4(715) 1134 1177 1249 1276 1349 1349
E5(730) 1149 1197 1248 1260 1328 1328

I take the highest value (row 1), because it represents me more useful

OPTIMISTIC

Alternative e1(610) e2(630) e3(680) e4(715) e5(730) Results

e1(610) 1147 1152 1238 1283 1311 1147
e2(630) 1109 1193 1222 1298 1314 1109
e3(680) 1106 1181 1245 1281 1346 1106
e4(715) 1134 1177 1249 1276 1349 1134
e5(730) 1149 1197 1248 1260 1328 1149
Row 3 is chosen because it is where the greatest utility is presented

HURWICZ

ALTERNATIVE E1(610) E2(630) E3(680) E4(715) E5(730) RESULTS

E1(610) 1147 1152 1238 1283 1311 1220.8
E2(630) 1109 1193 1222 1298 1314 1201.25
E3(680) 1106 1181 1245 1281 1346 1214
E4(715) 1134 1177 1249 1276 1349 1230.75
E5(730) 1149 1197 1248 1260 1328 1229.55

1147 ∗ 0.55 + 1311 ∗ 0.45 = 1220.8

1109 ∗ 0.55 + 1314 ∗ 0.45 = 1201.25
1106 ∗ 0.55 + 1324 ∗ 0.45 = 1214
1134 ∗ 0.55 + 1349 ∗ 0.45 = 1215.35
1149 ∗ 0.55 + 1328 ∗ 0.45 = 1229.55

The best state would be 2, which is the lowest expected cost.

SAVAGE

Alternative e1(610) e2(630) e3(680) e4(715) e5(730) Results

e1(610)
41 16 23
0 0 41
e2(630)
3 41 38 3
0 41
e3(680)
23 21 35
0 29 35
 e4(715)
28 25 16 38
27 38
e5(730) 43 45 26 0 17 45

1147 − 𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟔 = 41 °1152 − 𝟏𝟏𝟓𝟐 = 0 °1238 − 𝟏𝟐𝟐𝟐 = 16 °1283 − 𝟏𝟐𝟔𝟎 = 23 °1311 − 𝟏𝟑𝟏𝟏
=0
1109 − 𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟔 = 3 °1193 − 𝟏𝟏𝟓𝟐 = 4 °1222 − 𝟏𝟐𝟐𝟐 = 0 °1298 − 𝟏𝟐𝟔𝟎 = 38 °1314 − 𝟏𝟑𝟏𝟏
=3
1106 − 𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟔 = 0 °1181 − 𝟏𝟏𝟓𝟐 = 29 °1245 − 𝟏𝟐𝟐𝟐 = 23 °1281 − 𝟏𝟐𝟔𝟎 = 21 °1346 − 𝟏𝟑𝟏𝟏
= 35
1134 − 𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟔 = 28 °1177 − 𝟏𝟏𝟓𝟐 = 25 °1249 − 𝟏𝟐𝟐𝟐 = 27 °1276 − 𝟏𝟐𝟔𝟎 = 16 °1349 − 𝟏𝟑𝟏𝟏
= 38
1149 − 𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟔 = 43 °1197 − 𝟏𝟏𝟓𝟐 = 45 °1248 − 𝟏𝟐𝟐𝟐 = 26 °1260 − 𝟏𝟐𝟔𝟎 = 0 °1328 − 𝟏𝟑𝟏𝟏
= 17

Being a cost matrix I choose the lowest value

Exercise 4. Game Theory method:

To develop the exercise 4 to 5, it is necessary to consult the following reference:

Sharma, J. (2016). Operations Research : Theory and Applications. (pp. 383-391), New
Delhi: Laxmi Publications Pvt Ltd, v. Sixth edition. Available in the knowledge environment
of the course.

Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has only
two strategies. Consider the following 2 x n game:

Player 2
Strategy
A B C
I 27 33 38
Player 1
II 19 25 31

According to Table 4 find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied
to matrices 2 x n or m x 2.

PLAYER 2
A B C MIN
I 27 33 38 27
PLAYER 1
II 19 25 31 19
 MAXI 27 33 38

The minimum and maximum given the same 27, we deliver the game.

Exercise 5. Game Theory method:

Graphical solutions are only applicable to games in which at least one of the players has only
two strategies. Consider the following game m x 2:

PLAYER 2
STRATEGY
A B
I 27 35
PLAYER 1 II 31 35
II 33 37

According to Table 5, find the value of the game by means of the graphical method applied
to matrices 2 x n or m x 2.

Player 2
Strategy
A B min
I 27 35 27
Player 1 II 31 35 31
II 33 37 33
max 33 37

As the minimum and maximum gave us 33 we give the game over.

Exercise 6. Optimum solution of two-person games (Theory of games, mixed strategies):

To develop the exercise 6, it is necessary to consult the following reference:

Sharma, J. (2016). Operations Research : Theory and Applications. (pp. 383-391), New
Delhi: Laxmi Publications Pvt Ltd, v. Sixth edition. Available in the knowledge environment
of the course.

The games represent the latest case of lack of information where intelligent opponents are
working in a conflicting environment. The result is that a very conservative criterion is
generally proposed to solve sets of two people and sum zero, called minimax - maximin
criterion. To determine a fair game, the minimax = maximin, it is necessary to solve the
stable strategy through the Solver.

PLAYER B
81 83 81 80 91

PLAYER A
84 83 86 86 82
82 78 86 89 84
87 87 91 89 88
83 85 35 88 81

Solve the game of players A and B to determine the value of the game, using the proposed
Excel tool, according to the data in table 6.
 CONCLUSIÓN

With the previous work it was possible to put into practice the knowledge related to the theory
of decisions, as well as the theory of games and the graphic resolution of these problems.

The theory of decisions is essential to open the way to understanding and knowledge within
an environment, knowing what will be the best option when deciding on an important event
of our financial or business life.

The solver is also a very useful tool for the decisive results in decision making since it is in
charge of giving us precise results
 REFERENCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS

 Joyce, J. (1999). The Foundations of Causal Decision Theory. Camdridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press Editorial. Retrieved
from http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co:2051/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&A
N=228167&lang=es&site=eds-live
 .Prisner, E. (2014). Game Theory. Washington, District of Columbia, USA:
Mathematical Association of America Editorial. Retrieved
from http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co:2051/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&A
N=800654&lang=es&site=eds-live
 Owen, G. (2013). Game Theory: Monterey, California, USA: Naval Postgraduate
School Editorial. Retrieved
from http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.co
m/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=525603&lang=es&site=ehost-live
 Abdi, M. (2003). A design strategy for reconfigurable manufacturing systems (RMSs)
using analytical hierarchical process (AHP): a case study: Manchester, UK:
International Journal of Production Research. Retrieved
from http://bibliotecavirtual.unad.edu.co:2051/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN
=10149095&lang=es&site=eds-live