More on Nash equilibrium Looking more closely at the definition of Nash Equilibrium
More on Nash equilibrium
- The idea of Nash equilibrium is important enough but I think it deserves it's own video.
- And you may never know it's name for John Nash, who's played by Russel Crowe in the movie of Beuatiful Mind.
- And it's a game-theoretical concept and you know game theory sounds very fancy but it really is just theory of
- games. In this Prisonner's dilemma, that we have talked about in the previous video, really is a game.
- Different players have different strategies and based on the intearacting strategies, you can adopt in different states
- and you can put different outcomes. And here's a definition of Nash equillibrium from Princeton.
- That's a good place to get a definition, because that's were John Nash spent a good bit of his career.
- And it's defined or this definition - it's a stable state of a system, but involved several interacting participants in
- our Prisoner's dilemma. We had 2 participants in which no participant can gain by a change of strategy as long
- as all the other participants remain unchanged. So let's think about the different states of this system right
- over here and think of wheter any of them meet this criteria. So let's say, let me number this one, let's say
- that is state 1, this is state 2, this is state 3, and this is state 4 right over here. So if we're sitting in state 1
- can any of the participants change the strategy, can gain by changing the strategy assuming that other
- participants just constant. So if we're sitting here in state 1 right over here, so Al is denying and Bill is denying.
- But Al can improve his situation by changing his strategy. He can go from denying, which is a scenario here
- to confessing. So Al can change his strategy and gain or you could gain the other assuming Bill was consent into
- deny or you can go the other way. If we're sitting in state 4 and we assume all is consent Bill can improve his
- situation by going from deny to confession. We can go from 2 year to 1 year. So for both of those reasons if I
- do this true but this would not be Nash equilibrium but both of those are true so this is definitely not a Nash equillibrium.
- I give 2 examples in which A participant can gain by change of strategy as long as the other participant
- remains unchanged. This move was one example and this is a move by Al, what Bill's deny to consent.
- This was a move by Bill what Al's deny to consent. Not a Nash equillibrium. Now let's think about state 2.
- If we're sitting in state 2 can assuming Bill is constant can Al change to improve his outcome. In state 2 Al is
- only getting 1 year. If Al goes from confession to deny he's going to get 2 years. So Al cannot change his
- strategy and get again here. So sofar it's looking good. But let's think from a Bill's point of view. So if we're in
- state 2 right over here and we assume Al is constant can Bill do something that changes things. We're sure
- Bill can go from denying to confessing. If he goes from denying to confessing he goes from 10 years
- in prison to 3 years in prison. So I give an example of a participant who can gain by change of strategy
- as long as all other participants remain unchanged. Both of them don't have to be able to do this.
- You just need one of them for to not to be Nash equillibrium. Because Bill can have again
- by change of strategy holding Al's strategy constant. So holding Al's strategy in the confession -
- that is not a Nash equillibrium. Because you have this movement can a curve to a more favourable
- state for Bill holding Al constant. Now let's go to state 3. Let's think about this. So for in state 3, so this is
- Bill's confessing and Al denying, so let's first think about Al's point of view. If we assume Bill is constant
- in his confession can Al improve his scenario. We're sure he can go from denying which is what have to be
- about we're in state 3 to confessing. So he can move in this direction right over here. And that by self is
- not enough evidence this is not a Nash equillibrium. We don't need to think about Bill, that's the metric,
- we actually nothing that Bill can do in this scenario holding Al constant. That could improve things
- Bill would not go from here to here but just by the fact that Al can go from here to here holding Bill
- constant tells you that this is not a Nash equillibrium. Now let's go to scenario 4 and you know where this
- is going as you watch the last video. But now it's going to a little bit in more detail. In state 4 they're both
- confessing. Now let's look at from Al's point of view and we're holding Bill constant. We're holding Bill
- unchanged. So we stay in this corn, we assume that Bill is confessing. From Al's point of view if we're
- in state 1 can he change his strategy to get better outcome? But the only thing he can do is go
- from confession to deny but that is not going to be good. He going to get 3 to 10 years. So Al cannot
- gain by change of strategy as long as all of the participants remain unchanged. Now let's think about
- from Bill's point of view. We're in this state right over here we're going to assume that Al is constant.
- That Al is in the confession mode so Bill right now in state 4 is confessing his only option is to deny.
- But by doing that he will go from 3 years in prison to 10 years in prison. So he's not going to gain so he too
- cannot gain so we've just found a state, in state 4 which no particapants can gain by change of strategy as long
- as all participants remain unchanged. And this part is important because we're not saying that both can
- change simultaneously. You were not in this pay-off matrix allowing a diagonal move. And so no participant
- can gain neither Al nor Bill holding the other one constant. This is a Nash equillibrium. This one right here
- and this is a stable state.
Be specific, and indicate a time in the video:
At 5:31, how is the moon large enough to block the sun? Isn't the sun way larger?
Have something that's not a question about this content?
This discussion area is not meant for answering homework questions.
Share a tip
When naming a variable, it is okay to use most letters, but some are reserved, like 'e', which represents the value 2.7831...
Thank the author
This is great, I finally understand quadratic functions!
Have something that's not a tip or thanks about this content?
This discussion area is not meant for answering homework questions.
At 2:33, Sal said "single bonds" but meant "covalent bonds."
For general discussions about Khan Academy, visit our Reddit discussion page.
Here are posts to avoid making. If you do encounter them, flag them for attention from our Guardians.
- disrespectful or offensive
- an advertisement
- low quality
- not about the video topic
- soliciting votes or seeking badges
- a homework question
- a duplicate answer
- repeatedly making the same post
- a tip or thanks in Questions
- a question in Tips & Thanks
- an answer that should be its own question