All right, and let's just check this out, because I want to make a point of this, let's go back and do the following.

好，让我们记住这一点，因为我想要强调下这里，我们回过头去做如下的操作：

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

But it turns out that if you make the voters distributed more realistically, let's say like on a bell-curve shape, it makes actually no difference to the result at all.

但事实上,就算我们让选民分布更符合实际情况,比如说是按钟形分布的,但这实际上对结果没有什么影响

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

I think the easiest way to look at what this does, is let's take a really simple example- I want to make sure I put the right things out- I've got a simple little list of values there.

到底做了什么，就是让它跑一个简单的例子，我想要确信我找到了正确的元素-,这里我用一个简单的小的列表-,如果我去代码里面看。

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

Well, what I would say there is there is a distinction ... between picking out individuals and having a random choice of individuals. Like ... Between picking out... let me make sure, ... between picking out individuals, let me... what's your name?

我要说的是，选出特定的一些个体,和随机选出一些个体是有区别的，比如。,两者是有区别的，让我确认一下，挑选特定的个体，你叫什么名字？

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

So the best response for Player 1, as a function of what Player 2 chooses, q2, is just equal to the q1 hat in this expression and if I solve that out carefully, I will no doubt make a mistake, but let's try it.

这个就是参与人1的最佳对策,它是参与人2策略q2的一个函数,它和之前的q1帽那个表达式是相等的,虽然我是很仔细地计算的,还是有可能算错的,我来验证一下

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选