從"納什均衡"的普遍意義中我們可以深刻領悟司空見慣的經濟、社會、政治、國防、管理和日常生活中的博弈現象。一般的博弈問題由三個要素所構成：即局中人又稱當事人、參與者、策略等等的集合，策略集合以及每一對局中人所做的選擇和贏得集合。其中所謂贏得是指如果一個特定的策略關系被選擇，每一局中人所得到的效用。所有的博弈問題都會遇到這三個要素。
From the " Nash equilibrium" in the general sense we can understand the profound common economic , social, political , defense , management and daily life game phenomenon . General game questions posed by the three elements : the choices made by the players , also known as a collection of the parties , participants, policies , etc. , as well as a collection of strategies to win every game and human collections. Which is the so-called win if a specific policy is selected relationship , each of the players of the obtained effect. All games will encounter problems of these three elements .

畢竟，博弈論是數學，更確切地說是運籌學的一個分支，談經論道自然少不了數學語言，外行人看來只是一大堆數學公式。好在博弈論關心的是日常經濟生活問題，所以不能不食人間煙火。其實這一理論是從棋弈、撲克和戰爭等帶有競賽、對抗和決策性質的問題中借用的術語，聽上去有點玄奧，實際上卻具有重要現實意義。

After all, the mathematical game theory , more specifically, a branch of operations research , natural and ultimately on the road to talk through the language of mathematics , a layman it seems just a bunch of mathematical formulas . Fortunately, game theory is concerned with the daily economic life problems, so can not otherworldly . In fact, with this theory is chess from , etc. , poker and war contest , issues and decision-making nature against the borrowed term sounds a bit mysterious , in fact it has important practical significance. Game Theory Masters look like a game of chess economic and social problems , often blending profound truth in the game. So, more from our everyday life common things start to our side of the story as an example , meanders , not boring. Saying that one day , a rich man was killed at home , belongings stolen. Police in the case of the detection process , caught two suspects , Pascal Faith and that Coors and found the victim 's family lost their belongings from the residence . However, they have killed people denied , arguing that millionaires are first found slain , then just stole something to pilfering . So the police will isolate the two were locked in a different room trial. Talk to each person individually and separately by the local prosecutor. Prosecutors say , "Because you have conclusive evidence of theft crime , so you can be sentenced to one year imprisonment , but I can make a deal with you if you separate crime to kill Frankly , I sentence you to three months only imprisonment , but your accomplices to criminal sentenced to ten years if you refuse to confess , being accomplices to report , then you will be sentenced to ten years sentence , he only sentenced to three months in prison , but if you both confessed , then you should be sentenced to five -year sentence .#p#分頁標題#e#

" Pascal Faith and the Coors how to do it ? They face a dilemma of choice - confess or deny . Obviously the best strategy is to deny both sides , the result is that we are only sentenced to one year. However, due to the case of two people in isolation can not be collusion .

Therefore, according to Adam Smith 's theory, everyone is starting from the purpose of self-interest , they chose the best strategy confessed . Because confessed can expect to get a short jail --- 3 months, but only associates deny, deny clearly better than their own to take a good 10 years in prison . This strategy is a selfish strategy. Not only that , frankly there are more benefits . If the person confessed while they deny , and then have to sit 10 years in prison. Too uneconomical ! Therefore , in this case , or should choose confessed , even they both confess , at best, only a five-year sentence , was sentenced to 10 years is better than okay . Therefore, a reasonable choice is both frank and beneficial to both the original strategy ( repudiation ) and outcome ( sentenced to 1 year sentence ) does not appear. They have chosen this strategy confess sentenced to five years and therefore the outcome is called " Nash equilibrium" , also called non-cooperative equilibrium. Because each party in the choice of strategies are no " conspiracy" ( collusion ) , they just choose the most advantageous strategy for yourself , regardless of social welfare or interests of any other opponent . In other words , this strategy a combination of all the players ( also known parties , participants ) constitute the best strategy combination .

No one will take the initiative to change their policies so that they have gained greater benefits .

"Prisoner 's Dilemma " has a broad and profound significance. Conflict between individual rationality and collective rationality , each pursuing selfish behavior as a result of the final outcome is a " Nash equilibrium ", is also unfavorable outcome for everyone . Both of them are on the confession and denial strategies first thought themselves so they are bound to serve a long sentence. Only when they are the first for the sake of each other , or mutual collusion ( collusion ) , the minimum time before they can get the results of imprisonment . " Nash equilibrium" first " invisible hand" of Adam Smith 's principle challenge .

According to the theory Smith , in a market economy , everyone is starting from the purpose of self-serving , and ultimately society as a whole to achieve the effect of altruism . Let us remind ourselves of the economics of saints in the " Wealth of Nations " in the saying: "By pursuing ( personal ) self-interest , as he is often more effective in promoting the interests of society than they actually want to do ." From " Nash equilibrium" leads to a paradox of our "invisible hand" principle : from the self-serving purposes , the results of dog in the manger , neither selfish nor altruistic . The fate of the prisoners is the case. In this sense, the " Nash equilibrium" paradox raised shaken in fact the cornerstone of Western economics. Thus , from the " Nash equilibrium" , we can also realize a truth : cooperation is beneficial "selfish strategy ." But it must meet the following golden rule : as you are willing to someone on your way to others , but only if they act in the same way the job . That is, Chinese people say , " Do unto others not do to others ." But only if people do not want to do unto me. Secondly, the " Nash equilibrium" is a non- cooperative game equilibrium , in the case of the reality of China-Africa cooperation than cooperation in general . Therefore, the " Nash equilibrium " is a Von Neumann and Morgenstern cooperative game theory major development , or even a revolution.#p#分頁標題#e#