-
We've argued that once we realize those aren't going to be played, that 2 and 9 aren't going to be played.
我们明白了一旦我们知道了,无人会采用那些策略时,那么也没有人会选立场2和9
-
So he says that position 1, strategy 1, choosing the most extreme left wing position is a dominated strategy.
他说到立场1,也就是策略1,即选择最极端的左翼立场,是劣势策略
-
You can see that as you fill up your periodic table, it's very clear. But also we'll tell you a pneumonic device to keep that in mind, so you always remember and get the orbital energy straight.
在你们填周期表的时候，非常清楚但是我们也要告诉你们,一个策略去记住它，所以你们总是记得,并得到连续的轨道能量。
-
So Alpha in this case is better against Alpha, and Beta is better against Beta, but neither dominates each other.
所以对方选α时我应该也选α,她选β我也应该选β,这里没有优势策略
-
Delete those. Delete those for everyone else, because everyone else is not going to play a dominated strategy.
应该剔除它们,其他人也会这么做,因为其他人也不会,采用劣势策略
-
You also saw firms that were monopolists and monopolists don't have any competitors to worry about, so that's not a particularly strategic situation.
又比如说垄断企业,垄断企业没有竞争对手,所以这也不是策略形势
-
And since that was the best you could do under that belief, you'll hopefully keep your job.
因为那的确是在这种信念下的最佳策略,你也就不会因此被炒鱿鱼了
-
Just as we said you should never choose a strictly dominated strategy, you're probably never going to choose a weakly dominated strategy either, but it's a little more subtle.
我们说过,不要采用严格劣势策略,你也不应该采用弱劣势策略,不过这个更严密一些罢了
-
So everything that constitutes imperfect competition is a strategic setting.
也就是说,不完全竞争的情况,就是策略形势
-
And they weren't dominated even after deleting the dominated strategies.
即使在剔除劣势策略后,它们也不是劣势的
-
Beta is better against Beta. There's no dominance going on here.
她选β我也应该选β,这次没有优势策略
-
So you have a continuum of possible choices.
也就是说你的策略是连续的
-
So we've got the firms, they're the players, I know what their strategies are, I know a little bit about the structure of the market, and I still need to tell you what payoffs are.
我们有了公司,作为参与人,我知道它们的策略是什么,对市场的结构也有一些了解,我还需要告诉你们收益是什么
-
So now we've ruled out the possibility that anyone's going to choose a strategy 68 and above because they're weakly dominated, and we've ruled out the possibility that anyone's going to choose a strategy between 46 and 67, because those strategies are dominated, once we've ruled out the dominated strategies.
现在因为选择68,及以上的数的策略是弱劣势策略,所以我们已经把它们剔除了,并且我们也排除了有人会,选择46至67之间的数的可能,因为一旦我们剔除原博弈的劣势策略,这些策略也就变成劣势策略了
-
These strategies aren't dominated, nor are they dominated once you delete the dominated strategies, nor once we dominated the strategies dominated once we've deleted the dominated strategies, but they are dominated once we delete the strategies that have been dominated in the-- you get what I'm doing here.
选择20到30的策略一开始不处于劣势,在第一次剔除劣势策略时也不处于劣势,在第二次剔除势策略之后,也不处于劣势,但是在第三次剔除劣势策略之后,就变成劣势策略了,我想你们明白我的意思了
-
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
-
The idea is. It embodies the idea of putting yourself in someone else's shoes and trying to figure out what they're going to do, and then think about them putting themselves in your shoes, figuring out what you're going to do, and so on and so forth.
它揭示了以下过程的主旨,站在对方的立场上去换位思考,推测对手的行动策略,同时想象对手也会,站在你的立场,推测你的行动意图,如此反复进行
-
Conversely, if you think the goalie's going to shoot to the right with probability more than a ?, then the best you can do is represented by the pink line, and that's shooting to the left, or if you think the goalie's going to dive to the right with the probability more than a ?, the best you can do, your best response is to shoot to the left.
相反如果你认为门将扑向右侧的概率,大于?的情况下,此时你最佳策略用粉线表示,即从左路射门,也就是说如果你觉得门将扑向右路的,概率大于?的话,你最好选择从左路射门
-
So all of these strategies for Player I are gone, and all of these strategies for Player I are gone.
参与人I的这些策略被剔除了,参与人I的这些策略也被剔除了
-
Similarly, we can see that Right is not dominated, because it does better against Up, than does Left.
类似的,我们也得出右也不是劣势策略,因为参与人I选上时,选右比选左好
-
But Left isn't dominated because it does better than middle, and so on and so forth.
选左也不是劣势策略,因为参与人I选中时左是最策略 以此类推
-
So the strategies below 1 and above 2 are never a best response for Player I.
也就是说小于1及大于2的策略,都不是参与人I的最佳对策
-
And all these strategies for Player II are gone, and all these strategies for Player II are gone, and what's left? A lot of scribble is left.What's left?
参与人II的这些策略被剔除了,参与人II的这些策略也被剔除了,划掉的都剔除后,最后剩什么了
-
The highest Player II ever chooses is 2, and the highest response that Player I ever makes to any strategy 2 or less is 6/4, so all these things bigger than 6/4 can go.
参与人II最大只会选策略2,参与人I针对这种情况下,最大只会选择6/4,即大于6/4的策略也会被剔除
-
I found out what Player I's best response was for every possible choice of Player II, and I found out what Player II's best response was for every possible strategy of Player I.
我发现了参与人I的最佳对策,取决于参与人II的可选策略,同时也发现,参与人II的最佳对策,取决于参与人I的可选策略
-
So Player i's payoff "Ui," depends on all the choices in the class, in this case, including her own choice. Of course, a shorter way of writing that would be "Ui," it depends on the profile.
参与人i的收益Ui,由所有参与人的策略决定,当然也包括她自己的策略,简写应该是Ui,它由策略组合决定
-
If Player II chooses 4, then the synergy leads Player I to raise his best response all the way up to 2, but these strategies up here above 2 are never a best response for Player I. Is that right?
如果参与人II选4,协同导致,参与人I的最佳对策变成2,参与人I的那些大于2的策略,也永远不会成为最佳对策,对不对
应用推荐