So did anyone choose strategies bigger than 67? Okay, I'm not going to read out names here, but turns out four of you did.

但还是有人选择大于67的数,对吗,我不会把他们的名字念出来,事实上你们当中有四名同学这么选的

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

You're telling them, "you're my first choice."

你得告诉他们，“你是我的第一选择。”

关于早期入学申请 - SpeakingMax英语口语达人

The strategies that are less than 67 but bigger than 45, I think these strategies are not, they're not dominated strategies in the original game.

对于选择大于45而小于67的数,我认为他们并不是,在原博弈中并不是劣势策略

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

I don't know why they make that choice.

我不知道为什么他们做出这样的选择。

麻省理工公开课 - 固态化学导论课程节选

And my bet is when they chose the stickers they had a pretty good sense of why, of which ones the boys would prefer in those studies.

我猜是当研究人员选择挑选贴纸时,他们很清楚男孩们会在这些研究中,喜欢哪些贴纸

耶鲁公开课 - 心理学导论课程节选

I ended up in the newspaper the next day for having argued that they are way off on their investment opportunities because oil is such a volatile thing.

结果第二天的报纸就报导,我提出,他们在投资的选择上错得离谱,因为石油是易变的。

耶鲁公开课 - 金融市场课程节选

So the person they chose to talk to, Wolfgang Pauli and I think it was just Goudsmit that went to him and discussed it is Wolfgang Pauli, Pauli which is shown here.

所以他们选择，讨论的人是,我觉得仅仅是Goudsmit去和他讨论了，这就是。

麻省理工公开课 - 化学原理课程节选

So the first argument, that's a straight forward argument, the second argument says, I put myself in other peoples shoes, I realize they're not going to play a dominated strategy, and therefore, having realized they're not going to play a dominated strategy, I shouldn't play a strategy between 45 and 67.

所以第一个过程是直截了当地,而第二个过程,我从别人的角度思考,发现他们并不会选择劣势策略,意识到他们并不会选择劣势策略后,我也不应该选择45至67的数

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

My argument must be wrong because it goes against the lesson of the class and the lessons of the class are gospel right, they're not wrong ever, so what's wrong with that argument? Yes, Ale Well because you have to be able to agree, you have to be able to speak to them but we aren't allowed to show our partners what we wrote.

这个说法肯定有问题,因为这和我们的结论刚好背道而驰,结论是绝对正确的,结论没错,那这个说法错在哪,艾尔,因为你必须要能够达成一致,你需要和他们谈判,但是我们不允许同伴看到我的选择

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选