Question

哪位帮忙翻译一下这段话

It is widely-accepted that not every player behaves rationally in complex situations, so assumptions (1) and (2) are sometimes violated. For explaining consumer choices and other decisions, rationality may still be an adequate approximation even if a modest percentage of players violate the theory. But game theory is different. Players' fates are intertwined. The presence of players who do not think strategically or optimize can therefore change what rational players should do. As a result, what a population of players is likely to do when some are not thinking strategically and optimizing can only be predicted by an analysis which uses the tools of (1)-(3) but accounts for bounded rationality as well, preferably in a precise way.
It is also unlikely that equilibrium (3) is reached instantaneously in one-shot games. The idea of instant equilibration is so unnatural that perhaps an equilibrium should not be thought of as a prediction which is vulnerable to falsification at all. Instead, it should be thought of as the limiting outcome of an unspecified learning or evolutionary process that unfolds over time. In this view, equilibrium is the end of the story of how strategic thinking, optimization, and equilibration (or learning) work, not the beginning (one-shot) or the middle (equilibration).
翻得好会有追加的

Answer 1

这是被广泛接受的，不是每一个球员的表现在复杂的情况下，这样的假设（1）和（2）有时被侵犯。解释消费者的选择和其他决策的合理性，可能还有一个适当的近似，即使少量比例的球员违反理论。但博弈论是不同的。玩家的命运交织在一起。在场的球员谁不认为战略或优化，因此能够改变什么合理的球员应该做的。因此，一个人口的球员有可能做一些不是战略思维和优化只能预测分析，使用的工具（1）-（3）但占有限理性为好，最好是在一个精确的方式。
它也不可能达到平衡（3）瞬间一次性博弈。的想法，即时平衡是极不自然，也许一个平衡不应被认为是一个预测是容易伪造的所有。相反，它应被认为是限制结果不明的学习或进化过程，展现了时间。按照这种观点，平衡是故事的结局如何，战略思维，优化，和平衡（学习）的工作，而不是开始（一次）或中间（平衡）。

追问

这个我自己用软件也能翻的

追答

你没说不能用软件翻啊？！