51

Re: Nash's balance

52

Re: Nash's balance

Hello, Dym On, you wrote: P>> Results of fair choices are close to 50/50 only in pure,  and a mathematical model of two-party system. The American political system is very close to this model. British any more very much, despite almost two-party membership, remaining further away. To honesty of choices it has no relation.... <<RSDN@Home 1.0.0 alpha 5 rev. 0>>

53

Re: Nash's balance

Hello, Dym On, you wrote: DO> PPS And the award it of a distance for: DO> The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2005 was awarded jointly to Robert J. Aumann and Thomas a C. Schelling "for having enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis" DO>... For the outstanding contribution to understanding of the theory of conflicts and the cooperation, developed on the basis of the games theory... In a network to a fig of short articles on that, for what gave them the award. If at them you will look, you will see that the core is an analysis of application of the games theory. As a matter of fact they proved if process repeated and long-term the games theory is applicable and works. As a matter of fact, . Institutes are just and there are long-term processes and they are analyzed by means of strategy.

54

Re: Nash's balance

Hello, B0FEE664, you wrote: BFE> the Basic error consists that implicitly is supposed that in essence it is not important to batches to defend what program if only on choices to win. I.e. affirms that there are no the basic political parties with ideology. Such there is not present.

55

Re: Nash's balance

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: BFE>> the Basic error consists that implicitly is supposed that in essence it is not important to batches to defend what program if only on choices to win. I.e. affirms that there are no the basic political parties with ideology. GZ> such there is not present. Is, it is simple you do not note. As well as Nash's balance implicitly assumes the free market on which gangsters do not come and do not tell: "and that  you here build without our resolution?".

56

Re: Nash's balance

Hello, B0FEE664, you wrote: BFE>>> the Basic error consists that implicitly is supposed that in essence it is not important to batches to defend what program if only on choices to win. I.e. affirms that there are no the basic political parties with ideology. GZ>> such there is not present. BFE> Is, it is simple you do not note. As well as Nash's balance implicitly assumes the free market on which gangsters do not come and do not tell: "and that  you here build without our resolution?". Did not understand? You entered the contradiction, the free market in which gangsters something resolve. It is already not free market. The free market under the theorem of Kouza - quite to itself strategy. Even under the theory of "the settled gangster" on Aumannu quite to itself the strategy conducting to balance of Nash. The coming gangster - the games theory any more does not work. More precisely there are implemented  strategy from any principle.

57

Re: Nash's balance

GZ> did not understand? You entered the contradiction, the free market in which gangsters something resolve. It is already not free market. The free market under the theorem of Kouza - quite to itself strategy. Even under the theory of "the settled gangster" on Aumannu quite to itself the strategy conducting to balance of Nash. The coming gangster - the games theory any more does not work. More precisely there are implemented  strategy from any principle. Well here you also explained, why balance on Nash does not work in a reality.

58

Re: Nash's balance

Hello, neFormal, you wrote: M>> Morozhenshik should walk on a beach, instead of stand in one place F> unless only in a totalitarian society. F> in the free society it can stand on one place, and anybody to it tells nothing. Did not expect such interpretation. On a beach it is necessary to walk for the purpose of magnification of sales for rolling seals do not go to buy ice-cream on heat for half-kilometer. Though in  the "free" countries it is forbidden.

59

Re: Nash's balance

Hello, Muxa, you wrote: M> I changed the beach form in the example. M> the beach has the form of infinitely thin three-finite star, which expansion of a ray - 1 km. And here it is not necessary to change conditions (and the beach in the form of a star does not happen). It is much more interesting, when the same conditions, but shopkeepers 3. Then it turns out that extreme can receive clients, taking away them only from an average, and the average in turn has to take clients, it can minimize only losses, balancing between the extreme. As a result, if in a case 2 dealers at center there comes stable equilibrium (any dealer, drifting from center - loses) in a case 3 - there comes such moment when central generally it is more favourable to leave center for one of extreme - i.e. stable equilibrium is not present, there is an oscillating system.

60

Re: Nash's balance

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> Hello, Fornications Pavel, you wrote: >> does not conduct. If players more than two at least, one player always has a possibility to refine the position for the account remaining. GZ> is not present. On the contrary, cooperation does impossible life of one player. Unless if they cooperate and type the third muzzle. And differently - long, and always it is possible to pass a beach to other edge.

61

Re: Nash's balance

Hello, alexqc, you wrote: >>> does not conduct. If players more than two at least, one player always has a possibility to refine the position for the account remaining. GZ>> is not present. On the contrary, cooperation does impossible life of one player. A> unless if they cooperate and type the third muzzle. And differently - long, and always it is possible to pass a beach to other edge. What for? There are other methods, for example to consider its territory of the, to divide it among themselves, and  it.