This allusion is very classic.
It's easy for people to think like this: A says to B and C: I'll give you more, so it should always be ok; But b will say to a: without you, the two of us will definitely share more than the three of us; So, I rejected your plan and put you to death.
First of all, 100 shares cannot be evenly distributed among the three companies, because if 100 shares are evenly divided into three shares and the remaining 1 shares are given to anyone, it will make the next person who has the right to propose a plan feel unfair, and she will not agree, so that the first person who proposes a share-sharing plan will be executed. In addition, the second person will definitely think that if the first person dies, she will get more money because there are fewer people, but the final result is the last person's 100 money.
Secondly, even if the first person can share this 100 gold equally, because if the first person who puts forward the plan can share it equally, the second person can completely disagree with his division, thus further sharing this 100 gold with the last person, so that both people can share 50 gold equally, which is more than three people. But the third person will think that if I don't agree with the second person's plan, I will get 100 gold.
Thirdly, the first person can't allocate 100 gold according to the amount other than 99, such as his own amount in 5 1-98, so the second person will feel unfair and disagree with his plan; If he wants a number less than 2-50, no matter how the second person divides it, it will not be recognized by the third person, so that the first two people are killed and the third person's 100 gold.
What will happen to the real situation? Han Fei said: The key to playing this game is not the order of drawing lots, but the method of distribution.
In order to survive, A must be willing to give up all the gold coins to the latter two. Similarly, because the decision is entirely up to the third person, B can only give all the gold coins to the latter. Generally speaking, A gets 0, B gets 0 and C gets 100, which is the only result.
Is that really the case? The distribution results of facts are: A gets 99 blocks, B gets 1 block, and C gets 0 blocks.
Why? A puzzled: impossible. They still don't agree to give them more. Isn't this method asking for trouble?
Han Fei asked B: Why don't you imagine that if A dies, B puts forward a plan, and as long as C doesn't agree, B is a dead end; B said: You can give all the gold coins to C, that's all.
Han Fei added: Even if B is willing to give all the gold coins to C, C can disagree with B's plan without worrying about B's revenge.
Compared with this scheme, B has no reason to disagree with the scheme that A gets 99 yuan, so that A and B both agree with this scheme, and then the scheme allocation scheme is established; This is the answer.