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
V M Technology 1= =2218.8
5
2109+ 2158+2245+2252+2328
V M Technology 2= =2218.4
5
2145+2177+2232+2256+2303
V M Technology 3= =2222.6
5
2130+2166+ 2206+2255+2322
V M Technology 4= =2215.8
5
2128+2165+2213+2275+2335
V M Technology 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 A 4=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∗2335−2303=32
2145−2130=15∗2177−2166=11∗2245−2206=39∗2275−2255=20∗2335−2322=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

ALTERNATIV
E E 1(610) E 2(630) E 3(680) E 4(715) E 5(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

ALTERNATIV
E E 1(610) E 2(630) E 3(680) E 4(715) E 5(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

ALTERNATIV
E E 1(610) E 2(630) E 3(680) E 4(715) E 5(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
E 1(610) 2109 2197 2236 2271 2332 2164,75
E 2(630) 2112 2152 2228 2281 2315 2162,75
E 3(680) 2137 2168 2240 2275 2317 2182
E 4(715) 2110 2176 2238 2286 2331 2165,25
E 5(730) 2136 2173 2243 2287 2329 2184,25

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

SAVAGE

ALTERNATIV E 4(715
E E 1(610) E2(630) E 3(680) ) E 5(730) RESULTS
E 1(610)
0 45 8 0 17 45
E 2(630) 3 0 0 10 0  10
E 3(680) 28 16 12 4 2 28
E 4(715) 1 24 10 15 16 24
E 5(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

ALTERNATIV
E E 1(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

ALTERNATIV
E1(610) E2(630) E 3(680) E 4(715) E5(730) RESULTS
E
E 1(610) 1147 1152 1238 1283 1311 1311
E 2(630) 1109 1193 1222 1298 1314 1314
E 3(680) 1106 1181 1245 1281 1346 1346
E 4(715) 1134 1177 1249 1276 1349 1349
E 5(730) 1149 1197 1248 1260 1328 1328

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

OPTIMISTIC

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

ALTERNATIV RESULT
E 1(610) E 2(630) E 3(680) E 4(715) E 5(730)
E S
E 1(610) 1147 1152 1238 1283 1311 1220.8
E 2(630) 1109 1193 1222 1298 1314 1201.25
E 3(680) 1106 1181 1245 1281 1346 1214
E 4(715) 1134 1177 1249 1276 1349 1230.75
E 5(730) 1149 1197 1248 1260 1328 1229.55

1147∗0.55+1311∗0.45=1220.81109∗0.55+1314∗0.45=1201.25
1106∗0.55+1324∗0.45=12141134∗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
P
 84 83 86 86 82

LAYER A
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&AN=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&AN=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.com/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