"Suppose there are n players participating in the game. Given other people's strategies, each participant chooses his own optimal strategy to maximize his own utility. All players' strategies form a strategy combination. Nash equilibrium refers to such a strategy combination, which consists of the optimal strategies of all participants. That is, given other people's strategies, no one has enough reason to break this equilibrium. Because breaking the balance is not good for you, it will make you lose more than you gain. "The above is the definition of Nash equilibrium, and the best explanation of Nash equilibrium is" prisoner's dilemma ",which we will talk about in detail later.
In Nash equilibrium, everyone in the game is convinced that he can choose the best strategy to beat the opponent's strategy, of course, when the strategic decisions of other participants have been given. In other words, at least the insider thinks that his strategy is the best and most beneficial to himself, but this may not be the case. From the Nash equilibrium theory, we can see that the optimal strategy in the game is not necessarily the most favorable, and choosing the current favorable strategy is not necessarily beneficial to the future and long-term.
From this, we get a paradox that we don't want to see: from the perspective of self-interest, the result is not only bad for ourselves, but also bad for others. From this perspective, the paradox put forward by Nash equilibrium actually shakes the cornerstone of western economics. Therefore, we can draw a conclusion that * * * wins, and cooperation is a strategy that is beneficial to both sides, but it must conform to the law: don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you, and of course, you should do the same, which is the old saying of China, "Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you." But only if people don't want you to do this to me. Secondly, in the real world, cooperation is less than non-cooperation, and Nash equilibrium itself is a non-cooperative game equilibrium. So in a sense, Nash equilibrium is right for Feng? The great development of cooperative game theory between Neumann and Morgenstein can even be said to be a revolution.
Now we often encounter many price wars around us, such as home appliance wars and newspaper wars. There is no doubt that the ultimate beneficiary of this war is our consumers. In fact, the end of the price war of each enterprise is also a Nash equilibrium, which leads to unprofitable manufacturers and no money to earn, because the profit of the final equilibrium point of both sides of the game is zero. The result of competition is stable and becomes a Nash equilibrium, which enterprises do not want to see.
Brands with successful homogenization basically have a strong competitor. They are playing games through various strategies and developing themselves in the process of competition, so as to better adapt to the changes in the market. The two sides of the game finally reach equilibrium through strategic choice. To some extent, they are win-win cooperation, not just competition. The word "competition" will make people feel that it is a cruel situation in which you fight for each other. For example, we will say that Coca-Cola and Pepsi are competitors rather than players, because there are other factors besides competition in the game. What the real game pursues is a kind of cooperation, winning or the result of coexistence of competition and cooperation. Simply explaining the game by the game is pale, thin and incomplete.
Take McDonald's and KFC as examples. They didn't go their own way in brand growth, but * * * made the fast food market bigger, so the cake left for themselves was naturally even bigger. They grew up together and widened the distance with the followers behind them, which is very enlightening to us.