John Nash

John Nash- Equilibrium model. nobel price of modern economy of 1994

in our own words

John Nash or his Equilibrium along with all that it is behind it, deals with the ancient ideologies, where an Equilibrium had achieved in order to evolve in all areas, but it is through understanding, meaning full awareness of other people or situation realities, looking and targeting for a Common Good. This complex economic model means in the end nothing other than to have compassion to other parties. Looking for a win, win, and avoiding greed because of which the world is in chaos today, it is not the lack of money that has the world is in crisis, but the lack of understanding, empathy and wiliness to share and to give.

As Martin Luter King Jr. said once:

If we are to have peace on earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe, our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a world perspective.

CORPUS MENS  took the best of this model and applied it into its approach to provide the experiences. We offer quality experiences at a low price and aiming having a social responsible impact for those who needed the most, we offer those same services at an even lower price.Since if we help to balance the Body-Mind of our society by being flexible, then this society will feel better and it will act with more integrity, with more compassion and it will be a domino effect that will benefit all in a long or short period of time. For us the common good its our own.



John Nash- Equilibrum model. nobel price of modern economy of 1994.

The Nash Equilibrium. A concept that was developed by the French economist Antoine Augustin Cournot 's analysis called ' oligopolies ' ( 1838), and which presents a competitive model of several companies competing for the same good, and in which each try to determine the ' optimal ' amount should produce to maximize their individual profits.


1.-Origin concept

Within the same can find the development of pure strategies, the mixed strategies, and the so-called Nash Equilibrium for extensive games, these are:


1.1 . pure strategies

Its slope of pure strategies was studied by Cournot own and developed on the basis of everything that an individual won / lost amounted to what another lost / won, remaining unchanged the overall situation of the economy, game economical than not was not much depth to each individual to choose a strategy simultaneously. 


1.2 . mixed Strategies

For the development of joint strategies would have to give the simultaneous coexistence of different strategies of action for each individual interacting in the game. This would have to wait for the development of what was called ' Contemporary Theory Games ' studies with John von Neuman and Oskar Morgenstein in his book ' The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior "(1944).
For the true splendor of the development of this concept would have to come economist John Forbes Nash, who was who showed in his doctoral dissertation of 1951 the real value of it, getting a deeper development of analysis until what is now known as Nash Equilibrium multidisciplinary and which would get the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1994 to prove that any game with a finite number of strategies has at least one Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies, and consider committee of Nobel Prizes that complies Nash equilibrium for non -cooperative games

1.3 . Application in extensive games

Although not essentially modified the analysis of John Forbes Nash, yes I change the method in which the equilibrium is obtained by adding the ability to reason through ' backward induction ' for determining the resulting strategy.


main Hypothesis

As in almost all economic assumptions underlying strong assumptions of rationality with subsequent cases which will achieve a Nash equilibrium these are:

Each and every one of the players looking to maximize your payment / expected gain according to the pay and conditions that describe the game

Players perform the desired and premeditated strategies according to their preferences , it is understood that strategies are executed without error.

Players have enough skilsl to determine your private balances and estimate the other players that interact in the game.
It is assumed that the fact that an individual modifies your strategy does not affect the original decision plans to deploy another individual. Each player also determines the way based on what others will think and think if you change it, it will consider in its determination.

All economic agents interacting assume compliance and pose while rationality as a general characteristic of each and every one of them.2. Problems applicability and non compliance with the assumptions If circumstances predefined in the previous section are not met, the results of the game would not be Nash equilibrium, but other solutions are consummated the main faults are:

Simply one of the players is not rational , so that you cannot reach a Nash equilibrium.

Balance that exists at least one player who is unable to carry out their premeditated strategy Neither meet.

Sometimes the ' rules of the game are not clear for each and every one of the individuals that interact , having a natural tendency to resolve deciding based on experience, and therefore sometimes balances that can be achieved may differ important part of the theoretical or actual balances.




This movie clip it's courtesy of MOVIECLIPS. Thank you!

corpus mens, appliing equilibrum model.



1.- Accessibility, (Modern Economic Aproach, " Best result for everyone")

2.- Because the accessibility the Individual Benefit from it and has a wellness.

3.- Individual learned, copy and reproduce previously experience

.4.-Other gets affected by the Individual approach, previously learnt.

5.- Domino effect, Society gets affected in a positive way. Goal achieved everyone got benefit from the (Modern Economic Aproach "Best result for everyone").


Also the internal logistics are the same regarding the staff, and suppliers, we do not negotiate % of payments, and instead we agreed in a mutual understanding of what is fair for everyone with a touch of compassion so we can receive the same.

The idea, instead of pushing to the limit and squeeze the other parties we acknowledge the need of other parties (customers, staff, ) and we find an equilibrium point even if this means a less profit, at the end the less will be more and the more will be less meaning for us; Less profit for the company, but more help towards the clients, the same applies with the staff, they are more content and the more is less for us because in a long-term what is it worth to have staff that is not happy and clients that cannot afford the experience and therefore we cannot help others and not ourselves.




3.-Balancing Nash in our lives

This concept, by its multidisciplinary nature, has a varied applicability in real life. Certainly there are games like the popular ' Rock Paper Scissors ' for what is not met, but there are cases in personal life as well as professional if it is obligatory.
The most famous and common applications are:


3.1 . Competitive Game

It is a game in which its simplest involves two economic agents, where they can participate more, and in which both must simultaneously choose an integer between zero and ten. The two players earn the lowest value in monetary units proposed , but in addition, if the numbers are different, which has chosen the more you must pay the other two monetary units, having a unique Nash equilibrium, one in which both players choose zero . Therefore, any combination can be more harmful to the interests to be a participant in the game to choose a lower integer value.

If we introduce a slight modification of the game, which is that if both individuals can achieve the chosen gain if both match , this game was about eleven Nash equilibrium.


3.2 . Coordination Set

This case is a coordination game driving, and in which there are two participants, where your choices are: driving on the right or drive on the left, and your payments are one hundred and zero if the crash does not occur if it happens this. This game can achieve just two Nash equilibrium, as long as both participants choose the opposite option simultaneously.


3.3 . Prisoner's Dilemma

It is the most popular game in the Nash equilibrium concept, and consists of a set of pure strategies, when two men stopped for committing a crime and they confess to have done the crime as charged at the same time. Strategy to be more harmful for both to decide to cooperate if, as must spend more time in jail.

You may wonder, why not decide to cooperate input both participants?

Well the answer is simple, and it is known that once the choice of one participant by the other, it is always possible to improve personnel result in the same. Therefore, if both cooperate, the decision itself would be a Pareto optimum, although not a Nash Equilibrium. Let's support in the following graph to illustrate this reasoning, the matrix shows the payments  and the headers have different strategies that can keep us and our namesake:



3.2 . Coordination Set

This case is a coordination game driving, and in which there are two participants, where your choices are: driving on the right or drive on the left, and your payments are one hundred and zero if the crash does not occur if it happens this. This game can achieve just two Nash equilibrium, as long as both participants choose the opposite option simultaneously.



There is the possibility of achieving the Nash equilibrium for two alternative ways, the first by a strategy of strengthening confidence collusion by contract or by experience, in which both players apply the old rule of 'an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth.


3.4. The tragedy of the commons

This game comes from further analysis that would make James Garrett Hardin on the Nash equilibrium, which published his work 'The tragedy of the commons' (The Tragedy of the Commons) (1968). That is a game in which there are no players, which make use of a common good, such as a forest. All players can decide whether or not to care, and although some choose not to care, they can always make use of it. Constituting a game in which players must decide between pursuing a selfish strategy or instead solidarity. Game Nash equilibrium achieves its no if the total economic actors choose the selfish strategy since solidarity reduces your profit. As is the case with some public goods problem exists preserve assets as the case of the environment, starting from a situation where it cannot contaminate, usually we tend to be selfish and appreciate more our comfort using our private vehicle rather than protect the atmosphere of greenhouse gasses.

In this sense, and to modify this Nash equilibrium, governments and public administrations introduce additional payments in the game, such as fines, which 'are able' to change the 'natural' behavior of individuals, to treat to force a social balance in which all individuals are supportive.



Follow Us

Tel : (514) 895- 6367

95 Henri Bourassa West, Second Floor. Montreal Qc.

Copyright 2016 Corpus-Mens Wellness Center. All Rights Reserved.      Terms & Conditions     /     Credits