The reasoning process is as follows:
1. If both Robber No.65438 and Robber No.0-3 were fed sharks, only No.4 and No.5 were left. No.4 proposed the scheme of No.65438 +0000, and No.5 agreed or disagreed, which reached half.
Therefore, the allocation scheme of No.4 is: 100 0.
Second, if all the 65438 robbers +0-2 are fed sharks, only the 3rd, 4th and 5th are left. When assigning the 3rd, just choose between the 4th and 5th and agree to its plan. From No.4' s point of view, No.4' s idea is to let No.3 feed sharks immediately to achieve the best distribution plan and maximize the benefits, so No.4 will not agree to No.3' s plan anyway; From the point of view of No.5, if you disagree, it will be No.4' s turn to allocate, and you won't get 1, so you can't maximize your own interests. Therefore, as long as No.3 is assigned to No.5, No.5 will agree with its plan.
So the plan of No.3 is: 99 0 1.
Third, if the robber 1 is fed to sharks, it's the turn of No.2 to distribute it. No.2 only needs one of No.3, No.4 and No.5 to agree, and he only needs to give it to No.4 1, because from the psychological point of view of No.4, when it is No.3' s turn, No matter whether it is agreed or not, No.2 only needs it.
Therefore, the allocation scheme of No.2 is: 99 0 1 0.
Fourth, go back to the focus of this question and see how the pirates who draw lots are allocated to 1.
1 No.,if I am No.5, whoever divides it will be satisfied as long as I give it to No.5, because when it comes to No.4, no matter whether No.5 agrees or not, I can't get 1 gem. There is no essential difference between the distribution schemes of No.6, No.2 and No.3, and they are all 0 gems.
The question now is: How does 1 choose between No.2, No.3 and No.4 to agree to its scheme?
If you choose No.2, then No.2 will be assigned. No.2 won't agree unless he gives No.2 99 yuan, but after giving No.2 99 yuan, he gives No.5 1 yuan, and 1 yuan can only get 0 yuan, which is inconsistent with the meaning of the question and can only give up the choice of No.2.
Let's look at number four again. If you give No.4 a piece, No.4 may or may not agree. The reason for agreeing is the same as No.2, and the reason for disagreeing is that I still have some illusions about my own distribution. 1 is not sure whether it can get the support of No.4, so it should only give up the choice of No.4.
From the above analysis, No.3 is the key figure in the fate of 1. First of all, from the psychological point of view of No.3, of course, it is best to divide it by myself, but before I could put forward my distribution plan, No.2' s plan was passed, and I didn't have any in No.2' s distribution plan. In this way, as long as 1 is given to 1, I will agree. Therefore, in order to maximize the mentality and interests of No.3, No.65438 +0 is given to No.3' s 65438.
98 0 1 0 1
In the eyes of theorists, "robber sharing money" is actually a highly simplified and abstract model (non-mathematical model), but it is undoubtedly based on reality. In the mode of "robber sharing money", the key for any distributor to pass his plan is to consider clearly what the challenger's distribution plan is in advance, so as to get the maximum benefit at the least cost, thus attracting the most dissatisfied people in the challenger's distribution plan. Think about the peasant uprisings of past dynasties, the constant court battles, the alliance betrayal everywhere in our time, the intrigue within the enterprise, and the stumbling politics at the foot of the office. Which winner doesn't adopt a method similar to "robber sharing money"?
Why do revolutionaries always look for the poor? Because they are the most frustrated people. Why does the terrorist Osama bin Laden have no market in Saudi Arabia, but he is very popular in Afghanistan, because Afghanistan is an outcast of globalization. Why do the top leaders in enterprises often abandon the number two and get on well with accountants and cashiers when they are engaged in insider control? Isn't it because the little people in the company are easy to buy, but the number two is always ambitious to replace them? ...
Many examples can be cited. For example, the first-Mover advantage and the second-Mover disadvantage in international transactions. 1 It seems most likely to feed sharks, but he firmly grasped the first-Mover advantage, which not only eliminated the death threat, but also benefited the most. Isn't this the first-Mover advantage of developed countries in the process of globalization? No.5 looks the safest, has no death threat, and can even take advantage of fishermen. But because it depends on other people's faces, it can only be divided into a small part. Isn't this a portrayal of backwardness and inferiority? It can be predicted that if China people are always at No.5 and always wait for others to make rules, the future may not be better than No.5!
At this point, I can't help but blurt out: robber logic is actually the inside story of the real world? !
But wait! Although the model of "robber sharing money" is a useful intelligence test, its application in reality is still rough. The real world is far more complicated than elaborate models.
First of all, in reality, not everyone is extremely intelligent and "absolutely rational". Returning to the model of "robber sharing money", as long as one of No.3, No.4 and No.5 deviates from the assumption of absolute wisdom and extreme rationality, the robber 1 will be thrown into the sea. Therefore, the first consideration of 1 is whether the cleverness and rationality of his robber brothers are reliable. He dare not gamble with his life with 97 gold coins.
Preference and utility and their substitution are another big problem. People in reality are so complicated that if someone's nerves deviate a little, they may show indifference to gold coins, just like watching their accomplices be thrown into the sea to feed sharks. If so, 1' s self-righteous plan will become digging its own grave!