Poker

Nash Equilibrium for Dummies

I hesitated on calling this blog for the reasons I’m about to write.

Nash can never be for dummies. That is too explicit and dumb an observation on the mind trend and nature of Nash’s work.

I am neither going to hyperlink anywhere, either: too much of a tax on the reader who has overcome the slight of being called a ‘dummy’ in the first place.

Since we became

John Nash overcame years of mental health problems: he appeared to talk to himself, before realising he talked to appear to himself.

Computing assisted him winning through: understanding encryption would eventually outpace decryption; whether this is a cause or pattern of Nash, let us move further.

Effect; Affect

Nash Equilibrium is not the absurd, gibberish abstraction it sounds.

Winning a Nobel economics prize [for Nash], it subsequently canonised in Hollywood with Nash becoming the god father of non co-operative game theory.

This is why Nash is never for dummies: everyone is in the game; we just sometimes can’t understand the language conditioning.

Polarisation

Every game has a solution, but defining the solution explicitly; makes the problem worse.

This is the Nash Equilibrium. It implies constant movement: forever in play.

It is therefore an affect: an action; a cause and effect and simultaneous cause and effect and action. It’s very difficult to define in the language we’re accustomed.

Which is effective language. Language that works and considers [to] end result.

Remember the A in affect for action; E in effect for end result.

The Missing Banner; Banner gone Missing

Nash Equilibrium cannot be explicitly polarised; only implicitly translated through an affect.

A direct appeal to the imagination; impelling action. Which understands the minds are serene and stable.

Nash is difficult and can make dummies of us all.