Equivalence between best responses and undominated strategies: a generalization from finite to compact strategy sets.

For games with expected utility maximizing players whose strategy sets are finite, Pearce (1984) shows that a strategy is strictly dominated by some mixed strategy, if and only if, this strategy is not a best response to some belief about opponents' strategy choice. This note generalizes Pearce''s (1984) equivalence result to games with expected utility maximizing players whose strategy sets are arbitrary compact sets.

Pure strategy dominance with quasiconcave utility functions

By a result of Pearce (1984), in a finite strategic form game, the set of a player's serially undominated strategies coincides with her set of rationalizable strategies. In this note we consider an extension of this result that applies to games with continuous utility functions that are quasiconcave in own action. We prove that in such games, when the players are endowed with compact, metrizable, and convex action spaces, a strategy of some player is dominated by some other pure strategy if and only if it is not a best reply to any belief over the strategies adopted by her opponents. For own-quasiconcave games, this can be used to give a characterization of the set of rationalizable strategies, different from the one given by Pearce. Moreover, expected utility functions defined on the mixed extension of a game are always own-quasiconcave, and therefore the result in this note generalizes Pearce''s characterization to infinite games, by a simple shift of perspective.

Review of: Frank Pearce & Steve Tombs, Toxic Capitalism: Corporate Crime and the Chemical Industry (Dartmouth Publishing Co. 1998)

Review of the Book: Frank Pearce & Steve Tombs, Toxic Capitalism: Corporate Crime and the Chemical Industry (Dartmouth Publishing Co. 1998). Conclusions, notes, introduction, preface ISBN 1-85521-950-6 [372 pp. Hardbound $72.00 Old Post Road, Brookfield, VT 05036.

[Review of] Roy Harvey Pearce. Savagism and Civilization: A Study of the Indian and the American Mind. Rev. ed. of The Savages of America

This classic volume on the image of the Indian in the American mind first appeared in 1953. Although both limited and incomplete, Pearce\u27s work compelled a virtual revolution in literary and historical approaches to analysis of public view concerning the role of Indians in the American past

Upper Neches River Basin Caddo Ceramic Vessels from Anderson, Cherokee, and Henderson Counties in East Texas

The National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (NMNH) has extensive collections of artifacts from ancestral Caddo sites in the Caddo area. This includes 19 ceramic vessels and one distinctive ceramic pipe from several sites in the upper Neches River basin in East Texas. The majority of these artifacts were originally collected by noted amateur archaeologist R. King Harris of Dallas, Texas, who sold his collection to the NMNH in 1980, while three of the vessels were originally in Bureau of American Ethnology holdings, and likely are from early archaeological investigations by Dr. J. E. Pearce of The University of Texas at Austin that were funded by the Bureau of American Ethnology (BAE). Pearce began work in this part of the state under the auspices of the BAE, and that work “had led me to suppose that I should find this part of the State rich in archeological material of a high order.

State v. Violette: Harsher Resentencing Encounters A Bolder Resumption of Vindictiveness

Twenty-one years ago, in Weeks v. State, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, adopted a rule to prevent judicial vindictiveness when resentencing defendants who had successfully appealed their conviction and been reconvicted. The Weeks court adopted as a state due process protection the United States Supreme Court\u27s rule laid down the preceding year in North Carolina v. Pearce. The Pearce rule provides that harsher resentencing of such defendants creates a presumption of constitutionally prohibited vindictiveness unless the harsher sentence is explicitly based on some identifiable misconduct by the defendant since the prior sentencing. Thus, the Law Court recognized under Maine\u27s due process guarantee exactly the same resentencing protection described in Pearce under the federal due process guarantee. The Pearce rule created a presumption of vindictiveness that seemingly arose whenever a harsher sentence was given, but the rule proved more complicated to apply than the language in Pearce suggested. The Supreme Court has since explained and narrowed the rule. Specifically, the Supreme Court in revising Pearce has required a likelihood of vindictiveness before applying the presumption and has recognized broader ground for rebutting the presumption. Until this year, the few cases giving the Law Court the opportunity to apply Weeks revealed no detectable differences between Maine\u27s due process protection and the federal due process protection under Pearce. The Law Court\u27s recent decision in State v. Violette, however, raises a question whether the Weeks rule and the revised Pearce rule coincide. The significance of Violette is unclear because of the competing tones in the Law Court\u27s decision and because there are no Supreme Court cases procedurally on point with Violette. Possibly, the Law Court hesitated in Violette to try to mirror a revised Pearce rule when operating in unexplored procedural waters. A bolder interpretation of Violette is that the Law Court declined to take notice of the Supreme Court\u27s emaciation of the Pearce rule and has begun a process of distinguishing the state due process protection from federal due process. In addition, the Law Court raised the issue of sentencing disparity in Violette in noting that the two sentencing judges sentenced the same defendant differently using the same facts. Thus, the Law Court may have been motivated in ruling as it did by a desire for sentencing consistency. This Note will track the erosion of the Pearce rule, compare the pillars of Violette to the principal federal revisions of Pearce, and draw upon the language and context of Violette to explore the Law Court\u27s motivation and the future of the Weeks rule

The Renormalization-Group peculiarities of Griffiths and Pearce: What have we learned?

We review what we have learned about the "Renormalization-Group peculiarities" which were discovered about twenty years ago by Griffiths and Pearce, and which questions they asked are still widely open. We also mention some related developments.Comment: Proceedings Marseille meeting on mathematical results in statistical mechanic

Researching scholarship in the age of the internet

In this paper I review current debates about the nature of scholarship in higher education (following Boyer 1990) and the impact of digital communication practices on its role in research and teaching (e.g. Borgman 2007, Pearce et al 2010), and discuss a methodological framework for researching these issues, drawing on work in Literacies for Learning (Ivani? et al 2007) and Socio-technical Interaction (Kling et al 2003)

Dunn, Thomas Pearce, b. 1861 (SC 751)

Finding aid only for Manuscripts Small Collection 751. Letter written by Thomas Pearce Dunn, South Houston, Texas, to his uncle and aunt, Mr. and Mrs. Leland Pearce, Auburn, Kentucky, relating much information about Texas, especially concerning the land, weather, and fruit growing