跳去內容

零和博弈

出自維基百科,自由嘅百科全書
兩個細路喺度捉國際象棋-國際象棋係一場零和博弈,一係其中一方贏、一係打和。

零和博弈粵音:ling4 wo4 bok3 jik6;英文zero-sum game),又或者叫零和遊戲,係博弈論同相關領域當中成日用到嘅一個概念。如果話一場博弈係一場零和博弈,意思即係話「如果一個博弈者 X 要得到某個量嘅得益,噉 X 以外嘅博弈者就實要有損失,而且呢啲損失嘅總量同 X 得益嘅量响數值上相等」[1]

好似國際象棋就係一場零和博弈:一盤國際象棋對局涉及兩位玩家;喺規則上,一位玩家要贏(報償 +1)嘅話,佢對手就實要輸(報償 -1),盤對局頂櫳淨係有得打和(大家報償都係 0)-無論如何,啲博弈者嘅報償加埋都會係 0 [2]

零和博弈嘅相對係非零和博弈[歐 1]。喺一場非零和博弈入面,博弈者嘅最終報償加埋有可能唔係 0,例如有場博弈,兩位博弈者之間可以合作,令到大家齊齊各自攞到 +5 咁多嘅報償-博弈者嘅報償加埋係 +10,噉就唔係零和。好出名嘅監犯困境就係一場非零和博弈-喺最基本嗰款監犯困境裏面,博弈者一齊揀合作可以大家齊齊有著數-報償加埋唔會係 0,而一齊揀背叛就會搞到大家齊齊有損失-報償加埋一樣唔會係 0 [3][4]

經濟學頗為睇重非零和博弈嘅分析:如果一場博弈係零和博弈,就表示場博弈係冇可能大家齊齊有著數嘅;而經濟學家嘅理論分析指出,好似貿易等嘅好多經濟活動都係非零和博弈-呢啲經濟活動嘅參與者係有可能大家齊齊有著數攞嘅,所以一個社會嘅成員能夠攜手創造更多嘅財富[5]

定義

[編輯]

用日常用語嚟講嘅話,零和博弈可以用以下呢句嘢概括[6]

粵文翻譯:(零和博弈係)一種情況,指一個人或者群體要贏到某樣嘢,就實要令第個人或者群體失去嗰樣嘢。

零和博弈係博弈論[歐 2]上嘅一種博弈,係常和博弈[歐 3]嘅一個狹義化個案。喺正式定義上,一場常和博弈嘅博弈者數量由兩個以至無限咁多個都得,重點在於啲博弈者嘅所得冚唪唥加埋實會係一個常數 ,例如想像有若干個博弈者要分一筆金額定死咗係 咁多嘅,噉如果一個博弈者想攞多啲錢,其餘嗰啲博弈者就梗會少噉咗啲錢,即係話(假設佢哋都係想自己嘅得益有咁大得咁大嘅)佢哋得到嘅錢嘅量加埋實會等如常數 ;零和博弈可以算係常和博弈嘅一個特殊個案,指 嘅常和博弈-如果一個博弈者 X 想要得益,噉佢以外嘅博弈者就實要有損失,而且呢啲損失加埋喺數值上會等同於 X 嘅所得[註 1][7]

例如想像家陣捉國際象棋,純粹由遊戲規則角度睇嘅話,如果一位玩家想贏(+1),佢嘅對手就實要輸(-1),頂嗮櫳都淨係有得齊齊打和(0, 0)-大家嘅得益總實會係。除此之外,啤牌同好多種嘅等嘅檯上遊戲都屬零和博弈-一場遊戲嘅玩家得其中一方有得贏,頂櫳就打和[8][9]

想像一場兩個博弈者(假設叫佢哋做「阿明」同「阿松」)各有兩個選項嘅零和博弈,場博弈用報償矩陣表述嘅話會好似以下嘅表噉- 可以係乜嘢數值都得,重點係無論兩個博弈者點揀,佢哋嘅報償加埋都會係 0 [1][10]

阿明揀選項 1 阿明揀選項 2
阿松揀選項 1
阿松揀選項 2

應用

[編輯]

零和

[編輯]
井字過三關嗰陣,一係其中一位玩家贏,唔係就淨係有得打和。
内文:遊戲檯上遊戲
睇埋:競爭

响成日俾人攞嚟喺聚會場合玩嘅檯上遊戲當中,有好多都屬於零和博弈:場遊戲嘅玩家淨係得其中一方有得贏,再唔係就打和;除咗國際象棋中國象棋之外,仲有-

  • 猜包剪揼-一係玩家 1 贏、一係玩家 2 贏,頂櫳就打和;
  • 井字過三關-一係玩家 1 贏、一係玩家 2 贏,頂櫳就打和;
  • 圍棋-一係玩家 1 贏、一係玩家 2 贏,頂櫳就打和;
  • 跳棋-一係玩家 1 贏、一係玩家 2 贏,頂櫳就打和;
  • 鋤大弟-得一位玩家可以贏;
  • 斐波那契拈-得一位玩家可以贏;

... 呀噉。要留意嘅係,話呢啲遊戲係「零和」,講緊嘅係想像「玩嘅人完全淨係在意輸贏」嘅情況-朋友之間一齊玩遊戲嗰陣,可能有人會(例如)特登輸,目的想氹一個玩得唔叻嘅朋友開心[11];喺呢啲情況下,玩遊戲嘅人明顯會在意一啲輸贏以外嘅嘢,即係話佢哋心目中嘅效益會包含「朋友嘅開心」等輸贏以外嘅因素。可以睇埋行為經濟學方面嘅嘢。

非零和

[編輯]

應用博弈論上會分析嘅博弈多數都係非零和嘅,博弈者嘅報償加埋可以唔係 0,例如-

... 呀噉。上述呢啲博弈往往可以攞嚟模擬好多社會現象,例如監犯困境噉就俾人指係成功捕捉到人類社會裏面「合作有可能俾人搵老襯,但又有可能好搵過自己單獨行事」嘅情況;而「模擬到現實社會現象嘅博弈多數係非零和」呢點就暗示咗,人同人之間嘅交流好多時都係有得大家齊齊有著數嘅[12][13]

例:國際貿易

舉個具體啲嘅例子,想像國際貿易當中涉及嘅分工[14]:例如家陣有兩個國家 A 同 B,因為地理文化等嘅差異,A 比較擅長生產小麥,而 B 比較擅長生產電子架生;原則上,兩個國家可以完全唔同對方做貿易,淨係掛住各自噉生產小麥同電子架生,於是

  • A 國生產到 100,000 咁多嘅小麥同 10,000 部智能手機,而
  • B 國就生產到 50,000 噸咁多嘅小麥同 100,000 部智能手機;

再想像佢哋知道對方喺專長上同自己有異,於是改改個安排,變成各自專門生產自己擅長生產嗰樣產品,再將生產咗出嚟但用唔嗮嗰啲賣俾對方,跟住

  • A 國生產 300,000 噸咁多嘅小麥同 0 部智能手機(將本來攞嚟生產智能手機嗰啲資源投放去生產小麥),而
  • B 國就生產到 0 噸咁多嘅小麥同 300,000 部智能手機(同一道理);

最後 A 同 B 加埋有嘅小麥總量(150,000 → 300,000)同智能手機總量(110,000 → 300,000)都高咗-大家齊齊著數咗[註 2]。由呢個例子可見,喺一場貿易當中,有可能出現一個情況係大家採取嘅行動令到大家都有得益(報償 )嘅[15]

2005 年一架德國貨船裝住啲貨駛緊入漢堡。呢啲活動係國際貿易嘅一環-各個國家同地區各自噉生產自己擅長生產嘅嘢,最後大家齊齊著數咗。

睇埋

[編輯]

文獻

[編輯]
  • Misstating the Concept of Zero-Sum Games within the Context of Professional Sports Trading Strategies, series Pardon the Interruption (2010-09-23) ESPN, created by Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon, performance by Bill Simmons
  • Handbook of Game Theory - volume 2, chapter Zero-sum two-person games, (1994) Elsevier Amsterdam, by Raghavan, T. E. S., Edited by Aumann and Hart, pp. 735-759, ISBN 0-444-89427-6
  • Power: Its Forms, Bases and Uses (1997) Transaction Publishers, by Dennis Wrong.
  • Friedman, S. D., Christensen, P., & DeGroot, J. (1998). Work and life: The end of the zero-sum game (PDF). Harvard business review, 76, 119-130.

註釋

[編輯]
  1. 順帶一提,噉即係話無論結果係點,場博弈都係會响柏里圖最適嘅狀態。
  2. 不過,現實世界嘅貿易仲要諗埋交易成本等嘅撈絞嘢。

歐詞

[編輯]
  1. non-zero-sum game
  2. game theory
  3. constant-sum game

引咗

[編輯]
  1. 1.0 1.1 Von Neumann, John; Oskar Morgenstern (2007). Theory of games and economic behavior (60th anniversary ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  2. Zero-sum Games. Stanford Computer Science.
  3. Ken Binmore (2007). Playing for real: a text on game theory. Oxford University Press US. ISBN 978-0-19-530057-4., Chapters 1 & 7.
  4. Chiong, Raymond; Jankovic, Lubo (2008). "Learning game strategy design through iterated Prisoner's Dilemma". International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology. 32 (3): 216.
  5. Hornborg, A. (2003). Cornucopia or zero-sum game? The epistemology of sustainability. Journal of world-systems research, 205-216.
  6. Zero-sum game. Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed 30 Apr. 2021。英文原文:"... a situation in which one person or group can win something only by causing another person or group to lose it."
  7. Bowles, Samuel (2004). Microeconomics: Behavior, Institutions, and Evolution. Princeton University Press. pp. 33-36.
  8. Washburn, Alan (2014). Two-Person Zero-Sum Games. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. 201. Boston, MA: Springer US.
  9. Von Neumann, John; Oskar Morgenstern (2007). Theory of games and economic behavior (60th anniversary ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 98.
  10. Zero-Sum (and Constant Sum) Games.
  11. GAMES TO BRING TO A CASUAL GAME NIGHT.
  12. Amadae, S. (2016). "Prisoner's Dilemma", Prisoners of Reason. Cambridge University Press, NY, pp. 24-61.
  13. Aumann, Robert (1959). "Acceptable points in general cooperative n-person games". In Luce, R. D.; Tucker, A. W. (eds.). Contributions to the Theory 23 of Games IV. Annals of Mathematics Study. 40. Princeton N.J.: Princeton University Press. pp. 287-324. MR 0104521.
  14. Johnson, Paul M. (2005). "Specialization". A Glossary of Political Economy Terms. Department of Political Science, Auburn University.
  15. Why Trade Is Not a Zero-Sum Game. Columbia Business School.

[編輯]
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy