If a player chooses a mixed strategy in a Nash equilibrium, this implies that the payoff from using that mixed strategy is the same as the payoff from using any of the pure strategies in it. If the statement is true try to reason why, if it is false find a counterexample.

False.

Explanation:

The concept of "Nash equilibrium" is been by economist and also by "gamers" in game theory. Nash equilibrium is so good for making decisions and the determination of strategies.

In playing this game, the players or participants can use the pure strategy or the mixed strategy. The mixed strategy is the use of different strategies randomly.

"If a player chooses a mixed strategy in a Nash equilibrium, this implies that the payoff from using that mixed strategy is the same as the payoff from using any of the pure strategies in it".

The statement given above is FALSE because the PAYOFF WILL INCREASE IF WE ARE TO PLAY A MIXED STRATEGY.

For instance if we have a head of 1 and -1, and a tail of -1 and 1, the payoff for pure strategy is likely one or minus one but for a mixed strategy it could be zero.

being born in poverty would limit the people's chances, opportunities and benefits.

this happen because of several things, such as:

- poor people tend to gain less access to good education and nutrition. this mean that their chance to obtain high paying jobs would also be limited.

- poor people tend to socialize with other poor people while the rich tend to socialize with other rich people. this means that simply throguh their social circle, rich people would have more business opportunities compared to the poor people.

- rich people tend to have more capital in their disposal. this would benefit them in business since it is far easier for them to fund their business operation compared to poor people.

answer///the stewardship worldview;