So there is a lot of synergy going back and forth between this class and our master program.

这门课和我们的硕士课程,有很多合作。

哈佛公开课 - 幸福课课程节选

So we can think of this term has to do with complementarity, or synergy, a very unpopular word these days but still: synergy.

因此我们可以把合作理解为互补或协同,虽然协同这个词现在不是很常用了

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

If we lowered the degree of synergy, what would happen to the effort level that we'd find by this method? What would happen?

如果我们降低了协同度,在这种情况下,结果会是什么样的呢

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

You might think it's because of this synergy that they don't take into account correctly.

你可能认为这是因为,他们没有正确的考虑协同的作用

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

It turns out even without the synergy this problem would be there.

事实证明即是没有协同此问题依旧存在

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

What would happen if we changed the degree of the synergy?

如果我们改变了协同的程度会怎样

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So if we lower the synergy here, not only do I contribute less effort, but you know I contribute less effort, and therefore you contribute less effort and so on.

如果我们减少协同参数,不但我会少付出努力,而且你也知道我会少付出努力,因此你也会少付出努力,以此类推

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

It isn't even, by the way, about the synergy.

顺便说一句,它和协同也没什么关系

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So this isn't to do with the synergy.

这和协同没有什么关系

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

So B is the degree to which the synergy across these workers, if we lowered B, what would happen to our picture?

表示这些参与人之间的协同程度,如果我把B的值降低,图像会怎么变

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选

If Player II chooses 4, then the synergy leads Player I to raise his best response all the way up to 2, but these strategies up here above 2 are never a best response for Player I. Is that right?

如果参与人II选4,协同导致,参与人I的最佳对策变成2,参与人I的那些大于2的策略,也永远不会成为最佳对策,对不对

耶鲁公开课 - 博弈论课程节选