这不是广告贴，也不是装逼贴，用加密模式，更多是因为比较没信心……
加密的作用，不是阻止人看懂，而是……赌你没心情看……就这样了~~

以下正文：
Nash equilibrium
Today we are talking about a man, whois known to somebody as a Hollywood movie “ABeautiful Mind”, while for others, he is well known by his remarkable theory;this one is John Nash, and his theory is Nash equilibrium.
Nash equilibrium is the DNA of society,saying that: one system could be existed due to follow Nash equilibrium, evenif it hurt everyone in it, otherwise, it would fail, and sounds good cannothelp it. Which is like an old saying: only in the state does man have arational existence
In order to better understanding about Nashequilibrium, we’d like to play a game first. That is Be Enemy or Friend? Hereis the rule: two person as a group, everyone have two options, be enemy or befriend; if both of you decide to be friend, then offering hand to each other,and you two could share the reward equally; if one choose be friend, and theother be emery, then the enemy would win and get all the reward alone, inaddition, the loser would pay the money, say 100RMB to the winner; and, if bothof you want to be emery at the same time, then on one would win, and you wouldget nothing in the game.
While there is good news, that youdon’t have to guess the mind of your opponent, you have a chance to show youropinion, kindly or hostile as you wish, but, there is no obligation for you tokeep your words anyway.

Game processing……
Well, we got three results in the game:
Nash equilibrium
Prisoner’s dilemma and
Pareto Optimality
You may wonder, why can Nashequilibrium not be the best result in the game? That is exactly what I mean, Inever say Nash equilibrium would be the best result, I just say it would be themost stable and possible one, because no one want to change their minds,whatever they know other’s decision or not.
So you must get the key point now: inthe game, be enemy is the best choice for every single one, but two bestchoice, finally lead to the bad result at the end, even not the worst one, butstill bad.
That is the mystic Nash equilibrium,the challenger of Adam Smith and his free market theory. Adam Smith told usthat, the free market will help us to do the right things, because everyonepursue its largest benefits, which would promote the welfare of all the humanbeing.
While now, Nash equilibrium says no tohim, with the desponding truth. When we want Pareto Optimality, we get Nashequilibrium instead. While we need not to be depressed so much, although Nashequilibrium is not optimal result, it is the exact way toward Pareto Optimality.

Before walking along the way, we haveto focus to another issue. Someone would wonder, if we get the ParetoOptimality directly at the very beginning, so we don’t have to worry about the Prisoner’sdilemma and Nash equilibrium any more, is that correct?
For this question, we have two differentideas, from West to the East.
The point is about sequence, somepeople think everything begins with ciaos, and then we find rules and build uporders, to make things better, and to reach the civilization; like Adam Smithsaid, the free market will help us to do the right things, we did good job notbecause we are kind people and we’d like to help others selfless, instead, wedid that because we want to get larger benefit from others, and the only way isto give better productions and supply better services, otherwise, we would out.
Adam Smith’s theory is dominate theWestern people for many years, until it meet the challenger, Nash equilibrium;
And there is also another idea, that wehave the wonderful state in the beginning, while our evil character destroyeverything gradually, like Eden; As we known from Chinese traditional culture,Tao Te Ching:

In the very beginning, we human beginsare naïve and innocent, we can give without thinking, and care without trying,we do everything out of nature. And then, something changed, we have the notionof good or bad, right or wrong, so we cast our nature away to do the rightthing intently; and things would not end like this, when the moral cannot holdour behaver at all, we introduce mercy to help, sooner the mercy is defended bycruelty, we put justice, amenity, and law one by one, at the end, when all thethings are out of control, people have to fight each other directly, with bloodand death, after losing enough, then people find their mind back, and try a wayto benefit everyone, that is Pareto Optimality.
So we can see, there is a circle from ParetoOptimality to Nash equilibrium, or otherwise, we are rambling in the circle,from one side to the other, unfortunately, it seems no way to pin our behaverto the Pareto Optimality so far.
Anyway, we do have some ideas to breakthe Prisoner’s dilemma, and lead our way from Nash equilibrium to ParetoOptimality, here it is:

Rule 1: Never be enemy first;
It is very important, and believe me,it is not as easy as we thinking about. It means we should trust others unconditionally,no matter the time, the place and the situation, ignore the worrying, the badfeeling, and even the threat etc. There is one thing we should understand:what’s we really want in the game? What’s we really want in all our life? Towin is not an exact answer, win what? Fame? Reputation? Money? Power? Or thegood feeling of defeating others?
There is an subtle Chinese saying: whenyou decide to win, it’s the time you begin to lose.
In fact, we need to throw away the ideaof win or lose, and focus on what we can get in the game, because it is not a zero-sumgame, Prisoner’s dilemma is not a zero-sum game, one’s lost is not other’s got,so we could work together to get better result, instead of fight against eachother to trap in the bad end, which is exactly the meaning of Prisoner’sdilemma.

Rule 2: Justice in return for injustice
This is coming from The Analects ofConfucius, with the key point of justice. When we facing to treachery orinjustice, we should treat it with justice, instead of kindness and revenge; ifwe forgive the bad behaver easily, then someone would not learn the lessons init, even they don’t know their action is wrong, which makes more injusticeoccurs in future, so tolerate the vice is a crime.
On the other hand, revenge is always anunwise option. Revenge is easily causing hates, which people focus on how tohurt each other and ignore the real thing need to do.
So justice is the appropriate way, noweak and no harsh. The key point of this rule, is to show the clear signal toothers: we need corporate.

Rule 3: Response to any action
There are two points we need to focusin this rule. First, response to every single action, whether be enemy or befriend, whether betray or corporate, no exception. Fight against for the emery,and kindness for the friend; punishment for the betrayer and reward for thecorporation, which is the effective way to leads people to the right behavior.
And we also need to respond clearly intime, we should make others know what their action would cause, the delayreaction would reduce the impression, and we cannot bear too many wrong actionsand the doubt to the friendly actions.
Rule 4: Simple and clear principle
Prisoner’s dilemma begins with suspicionchain, that each party does not know or trust the other, so they have to choosethe worse option. So the key point is to communicate and show your sincerity.
We human being tends to consider we aresmart than others, and make the complicated rules try to handle the problembetter, while it doesn’t work all the time. In fact, the complicated rules canbring nothing but trouble, no one would like to spend time to your tricks, andinstead they would treat you as unamiable partners.

Cases:
When we doing business through contract,we pay more attention to the payment issue, which is the key point of thecontract. Usually, we divide the payment into three parts, 30% of the downpayment, 60% of the production and 10% of the final payment; of course, thereare another types, 30%-30%-30%-10% or 40%-30%-20%-10%, depends on thesituation, while scarcely who would like to finish all the payment at one time.So this is an uncertainty to the Prisoner’s dilemma: the future. Improve theweight of future, would affect the decision now.
We all knowChinainsists one principle for many years, that “Chinadoes not use Nuclear weaponat first, and also we would not use it to the country without Nuclear weapon.”While I don’t think many people take it for granted.

有一段太高能了，只好贴图……
还有，前面部分可能有些语法错误没纠正，贴完了才看见，先这么着吧~~