由納許平衡*1看梁夢松v.s. TSMC 一事 

(http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5063951).

事由: 

梁夢松經過十數年的努力, 希望在退休前成為TSMC的研發副總.

TSMC認為我乃代工龍頭, 人才濟濟, 天下英雄盡入我豰中. 堂堂研發副總要用負責製程整合的孫元成, 或是空降部隊羅唯仁. 至於負責製程開發的梁夢松還是繼續負責製程開發, 毋須考慮升任研發副總. (驕兵悍將桀傲不馴, 無法聽從中央號令)

TSMC與梁夢松的博弈矩陣 

T妥協+梁妥協 = T為梁專設立研發部門, 梁升專任研發副總

T妥協+梁拒絕 = T為梁專設立研發部門, 梁另謀高就

T拒絕+梁妥協 = T把梁凍昇, 梁被冷凍三五年等著退休

T拒絕+梁拒絕 = T把梁凍昇, 梁另謀高就

這個矩陣的運算結果和當年李登輝藉著凍省來鬥垮宋楚瑜是一模一樣的. 當年的李登輝與TSMC的心態一樣: 都認為自己掌握資源上的絕對優勢, 因此沒有道理採取妥協讓步策略. 宋楚瑜和梁夢松一樣, 只能被迫拒絕.

最終結果 -- 弱勢一方啟動相互保證毀滅 (M.A.D.) *2 策略是必然的結果, 因為強勢一方予取予求, 不留半點生路. 這也是PLA研究的不對稱作戰*3 的精髓,

所以古諺: 窮寇莫追 , 圍師必闕。

Action equals to reaction. 

牛頓第三運動定律:作用力等於反作用力.

在此事件中, 外人無法直接觀測到作用力的大小; 只能根據反作用力的大小(三星技術急起直追, TSMC股價跌落超過20%)來推估作用力.

*********************************************************************

*1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium is a solution concept of a non-cooperative game involving two or more players, in which each player is assumed to know the equilibrium strategies of the other players, and no player has anything to gain by changing only their own strategy.[1] If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing strategies while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitutes a Nash equilibrium. The reality of the Nash equilibrium of a game can be tested using experimental economics method.

Stated simply, Amy and Will are in Nash equilibrium if Amy is making the best decision she can, taking into account Will's decision while Will's decision remains unchanged, and Will is making the best decision he can, taking into account Amy's decision while Amy's decision remains unchanged. Likewise, a group of players are in Nash equilibrium if each one is making the best decision possible, taking into account the decisions of the others in the game as long the other party's decision remains unchanged.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/納什均衡點

奈許平衡（英語：Nash equilibrium），又稱為非合作賽局平衡，是在非合作賽局（Non-cooperative game）狀況下的一個概念解，在博弈論中有重要地位，以約翰·奈許命名。如果某情況下無一參與者可以通過獨自行動而增加收益，則此策略組合被稱為奈許均衡點。

其經典的例子就是囚徒困境。囚徒困境是一個非零和博弈。大意是：一個案子的兩個嫌疑犯被分開審訊，警官分別告訴兩個囚犯，如果你招供，而對方不招供，則你將被立即釋放，而對方將被判刑十年；如果兩人均招供，將均被判刑兩年。如果兩人均不招供，將最有利，只被判刑半年。於是，兩人同時陷入招供還是不招供的兩難處境。但兩人無法溝通，於是從各自的利益角度出發，都依據各自的理性而選擇了招供，這種情況就稱為奈許均衡點。這時，個體的理性利益選擇是與整體的理性利益選擇不一致的。

囚犯的博弈矩陣 

甲招供+乙招供 = 甲乙各判刑兩年

甲不招+乙招供 = 甲判刑十年, 乙立即釋放

甲招供+乙不招 = 甲立即釋放, 乙判刑十年

甲不招+乙不招 = 甲乙各判刑十年

基於經濟學中「理性經濟人」的前提假設，兩個囚犯符合自己利益的選擇是坦白招供，原本對雙方都有利的策略不招供從而均被判刑半年就不會出現。事實上這樣兩人都選擇坦白的策略以及因此被判兩年的結局被稱作是「納許均衡」（也叫非合作均衡），換言之，在此情況下，無一參與者可以「獨自行動」（即單方面改變決定）而增加收穫。

*2 M.A.D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction

Mutual assured destruction, or mutually assured destruction (MAD), is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons of mass destruction by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender (see Pre-emptive nuclear strike and Second strike).[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence where the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which neither side, once armed, has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/相互保證毀滅

相互保證毀滅（英語：Mutual Assured Destruction，簡稱M.A.D.機制，亦稱共同毀滅原則）是一種「俱皆毀滅」性質的軍事戰略思想。是指對立的兩方中如果有一方全面使用核子武器則兩方都會被毀滅，被稱為「恐怖平衡」。這是根據戰略中的嚇阻理論：要避免有人使用強大武器就必需部署這樣的武器。此一策略實際上是一種納許平衡，雙方都要避免最糟且有可能會發生的結果－滅絕。

*3 非對稱作戰

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/非對稱作戰

非對稱作戰是一種軍事術語，指軍力弱者對上強者的戰爭中如何取勝或達成戰鬥目標的學問。

孫子兵法中以弱勝強, 弱勢一方集中所有兵力造成局部絕對優勢, 進而點突破強勢對手的全面進攻, 在絕境中殺出一條生路. 經典戰役就是項羽的破釜沉舟.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare

Asymmetric warfare (or Asymmetric engagement) is war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. This is typically a war between a standing, professional army and an insurgency or resistance movement.

Asymmetric warfare can describe a conflict in which the resources of two belligerents differ in essence and in the struggle, interact and attempt to exploit each other's characteristic weaknesses. Such struggles often involve strategies and tactics of unconventional warfare, the weaker combatants attempting to use strategy to offset deficiencies in quantity or quality.[1] Such strategies may not necessarily be militarized. This is in contrast to symmetric warfare, where two powers have similar military power and resources and rely on tactics that are similar overall, differing only in details and execution.  The term is also frequently used to describe what is also called "guerrilla warfare", "insurgency", "terrorism", "counterinsurgency", and "counterterrorism", essentially violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, less equipped and supported, undermanned but resilient opponent.