You were a, first a participant, and then an instructor in outward bound, which is not like we staff.
你最开始是拓展训练的参与者,后来又成为了教练,这很不同于我们的工作。
The Taylor rule specifies specific variables and everybody at the markets would understand the rule, ? and that's correct, right?
像泰勒规则就明确了具体的变量,市场中每一个参与者也都能够理解,这个没错吧?
She was part of the clinical trial that did this, and they gave everybody certificates after it was done.
她当时就在参与疫苗的临床试验,试验后他们会给每个参与者颁发一个证明
0% of participants eyesight improved significantly, as a result of just changing the situation.
0%的参与者的视力有明显改善,仅仅是在改变情境的情况下。
Let's talk a little bit about the participants in this dialogue.
我们再来谈谈,这场对话的参与者。
Well, there's another way to look at returns -those are the dollar-weighted returns -and the dollar-weighted returns actually do a better job of describing the experience of the group of investors that participated in these funds.
还有另一种考察回报率的参数,货币加权回报,货币加权回报实际上,是描述基金参与者收益的,一个更好的指标
Ale, do you want to ask this guy in the blue shirt here, does Player I have a dominated strategy?
艾尔,那个穿蓝衬衫的男孩,参与者I有劣势策略吗
Now, there's a lot of words here, I mean there's a lot of words, there's a lot of abbreviations, there's a lot of players.
这里涉及到很多名词,我是指有很多名词 很多的缩写,它们都是免疫活动的参与者
Now why? When I put this class together, I didn't think to myself, "Ok, so what are the things that I need to introduce ?" in order to please the participants in the class, the students?"
为什么?,当我开这门课程时,我自己没想过,“好的,我需要介绍些什么东西,以便能取悦课程的参与者,这些学生呢“
Governments establish regulators who set down rules for participants in financial markets and these rules may be perceived as onerous and costly to people in the financial community, but ultimately it's their salvation and it's what makes everything possible.
政府设立监管机构,监管机构为金融市场的参与者,制定法规条令,这些规则对金融界,有着极其严格的约束,但这些规则最终使得金融界运作良好,免遭灭顶之灾
And if Player I chooses bottom, then center yields 2, right yields 0: 2 is bigger than 0 again.
如果参与者I选择下,选中的收益是2,选右的收益是0,2大于0
If Player I chose top, center yields 3, right yields 0: 3 is bigger than 0.
如果参与者I选择上,选中的收益是3,选右的收益为0,3大于0
What Patrick said was: no, Player I does not have a dominated strategy.
帕特里克刚所说的是,参与者I没有劣势策略
I'll say it again, Player i's strategy "s'i" is weakly dominated by her strategy "si" if she always does at least as well by choosing "si" than choosing "s'i" regardless of what everyone else does, and sometimes she does strictly better.
重申一下,参与者i的策略s'i,弱劣于策略si,当且仅当无论对手怎么做,她选择si的收益至少与选s'i的相等,有些情况下甚至是严格占优的
应用推荐