Then tell me the outcome for the game for each player for that equilibrium point.

Then we would generate something all of us would like to have a balance between the hunger and the satiation.

What I want you is find the equilibrium point for this game.

So it's almost common sense.

There will be one equilibrium point. I want you to find it.

Neither player wants to switch away from keeping with that strategy.

A balanced force

Here we've ranked them for each party from 1 being the worst outcome to 9 being the best outcome.

It reduces Earth's heat radiation to space, so there's a temporary energy imbalance.

It is contract, do nothing, or expand? Click on the right box here.

Justice is balance.

Similarly, for the politicians, click on the right box for their strategy, which leads to the equilibrium point.

Yeah, we understand that.

legitimized by a democratically elected government,

We've got to keep balanced!

Oh my goodness, here we go again.

The ice will still not move

And there was a famous result from John Nash, economist, who was shown in the movie and book A Beautiful Mind proving that every game has at least 1 equilibrium point.

So, another way to rephrase what they're saying is that if there's something every body persists so everything will stay at rest or moving at a constant velocity unless it is compelled to change its state by force, unless it is acted on by a force especially an unbalanced force, and I'll explain that in a second.

The first is that we will not evolve.

So this right here will be a balanced force

Now here are some results from running the passive TD algorithm on the 4 by 3 maze.

He... will bring balance.

That is, through various gimmicks and things, a so called balanced budget had led him to have 25 billion missing out of the 76 billion in proposed spending.

Language is subject to interpretation.

Military power is important.

And these were somewhat noticed.

The only way that it would move is if there is a lot more force on one side than there is on the other side

The equalization of the oceanic

This is where the game turns out to be a dilemma because there's an equilibrium point that it seems like if both players are rational, they're bound to end up in this outcome, whereas the Pareto optimal solution is over here in the other corner.

And then, once again, the probabilities of a water molecule going to the right and to the left will be the same and you'll get to some type of equilibrium.

Now, the third concept is the concept of equilibrium.

This imbalance, if we want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391 ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm.

But what will come in the future?

It will occur without adding any more greenhouse gasses.

States

Status

State

State...

State

Status

So this work was a real technical challenge for us, and we worked very hard, like most of our works, over years to get the mechanics right and the equilibrium and the dynamics.

In the case of design, that means balancing desirability, what humans need, with technical feasibility, and economic viability.

But you can see those spikes, and they're there.

And no, we do not disrupt the balance.