We can delete those strategies and once we delete those strategies, all that's left are choices 1 through 67.

我们可以剔除那些策略,一旦如此,剩下只有1到67的数

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So this we would want to delete in order for the code not to run the risk of crashing, but let's now see this was made by an excellent teacher out at Stanford University.

我要按顺序删除它，不要冒崩溃的风险,但是这个是由一个来自斯坦福大学的,优秀教师做的。

哈佛公开课 - 计算机科学课程节选

So let's be careful here, we're not saying that we're going to delete the voters at 1, or delete the voters at 10, though we might wish to.

我们需要注意的是,我们并没有说要剔除立场1,或者立场10的选票,虽然我们希望能这样

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

And if I did this, and again, don't scribble too much in your notes but if we just make it clear what's going on here, I'm actually going to delete these strategies since they're never going to be played I end up with a little box again.

如果我再进行一次,别在笔记上乱画,我们只是想知道最后会怎样,因为这些策略不会被人采用,所以我剔除掉它们,最后我得到了一个更小的方格

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So what Christine is arguing is, even though it's the case that 2 is not a dominated strategy, if we do the process of iterative deletion of dominated strategies and we delete the dominated strategies, then maybe we should look again and see if it's dominated now.

克里斯汀说的是,即使选择立场2不是劣势策略,如果我们迭代剔除劣势策略,然后我们剔除掉了劣势策略,然后再来回头看看还有没有劣势策略了

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选