So from the point of view of the producers, this Cournot Equilibrium is worse than monopoly, but better than perfect competition.

从生产者的角度来看,古诺均衡劣于垄断,优于完全竞争

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

All right we've concluded that 1 is dominated by 2, and 10 is dominated by 9.

这里总结出立场1劣于立场2,立场10劣于立场9

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

And from the point of view of the rest of us, the consumers, this Cournot quantity is worse than perfect competition but better than monopoly.

而从消费者的角度来看,古诺均衡劣于完全竞争,但优于垄断情况

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So, in fact, it's not the case that 2 is dominated by 3.

因此说立场2劣于立场3

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

In particular, a strategy like 80 is dominated by choosing 67.

准确地说,选择80是劣于选择67的

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

Is 2 dominated by 3?

立场2劣于立场3吗

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So we know that 2 is not dominated, and particularly not dominated by 3, When you delete the dominated strategy of 2 dominating 1, or 1 being dominated, when you delete that and 10, then it is.

我们知道选立场2并不是劣势策略,它并不劣于选立场3,当你剔除劣于策略2的劣势策略1,或者说立场1处于劣势,当你剔除策略1和10之后,2就变成劣势策略了

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So to say it in words, Player i's strategy "s'i" is strictly dominated by her strategy "si," if "si" always does strictly better -- always yields a higher payoff for Player i -- no matter what the other people do.

用文字来描述就是,参与人i的策略s'i严格劣于si,如果si总是更好的选择,即总能给参与人i带来更高的收益,而无论其他参与人怎么选

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

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

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选