A Beautiful Mind - Bar Scene John Nash's Equilibrium Game Theory [1080p english full scene]

2:29 is the part where he realises he just let out his noble price idea in open and wanted to go document it before others in the table realise it..

The most desired outcome is never beneficial to everyone. It only creates unnecessary competition and leads to everyone's downfall. It's better to be content than to be happy. Nash created an outcome where everyone is content instead of fighting to be the only happy one.

This is a fantastic scene. Which makes it all the more a shame that it doesn't actually demonstrate a Nash equilibrium.

If you're single and this scene did not give you chills, I don't know what to tell you. This is a brilliant scene.

We saw this video yestersday in my economy class

One of the greatest scenes, also the emotional intelligence.

"People should know when they are conquered." .... "Would you Quintas, would I?"

The realisation that the solution he comes up with is actually not a nash equilibrium never fails to irritate me.. The solution maximizes the common utility but everybody has an incentive to choose the blonde (deviate from the strategy), hence the strategy is not an equilibrium.

In this clip, John Nash is using backwards induction. It's not the nash equilibrium. The nash equilibrium occurs in a simultaneous game, in which this scenario isn't. There's steps to this courtship, whereas a real nash equilibrium would take place if all of them decided to approach at once.

Dating tips 101:

THIS "CLIP" IS THE SOLUTION FOR PEACE ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE

I love this scene.

“What’s best for himself AND the group”

Wow we have done this in microeconomics 💞💞💞💞

This movie got me an A in Business Ethics

Researching how random animals' spawn rarity is determined in a game brought me here! Although I watched this movie many times, learning through a motive is completely different!

Well, I don't think that's actually Nash's equilibrium but it could actually be used to illustrate it. Let's think about a prisoner's dilemma. If each prisoner does what's best for himself (defecting, because it can end up giving him freedom and in any case avoids serving the 10 years) both end up serving six years. But if each prisoner does what's best for themselves and for the group (cooperating) they will both serve just one year. So if they don't go for the blonde (i.e. freedom) they can both win. In a prisoner's dilemma Nash's equilibrium is achieved when both prisoners defect because they cannot improve their individual outcome by changing their choice if the other prisoner's choice remains the same: if the other one defects and I defect too by changing my choice my outcome can only get worse (from 6 to 10 years). That's, of course, if Smith's principle is followed (self-interest). But should players follow Nash improved (or at least revised) version of it they would end up opting for remaining silent. Then again, we could never be 100% sure about the other's choice.

According the prisoners’ dilemma, Nash equilibrium doesn’t always gets the best result for the group,

Years later after double checking his work, he discovered he could have had the girl and did the paper....

This Theory Changed my life, have a slabbed PSA signed card by John Nash Jr