Game theorists routinely assume that all players are rational and that this is common knowledge. However, sometimes players may have reason to doubt the rationality of their opponents. Suppose, forinstance, that you believe the probability is seventy per cent that the other dude is rational and thirty per cent that they are insane, in which case they seek to minimize rather than maximize their payoff. The payoff matrix for the game in which the other dude is rational looks as follows. Which strategy should you follow

constant acceleration- a

constant velocity- c

no velocity or acceleration- b

explanation:

for body moving with a constant acceleration, the rate of change of displacement changes over time. this is proven by the increasing gradient of the curve (a) against time.

a body that is moving at constant velocity covers equal distances over equal periods of time, thus the straight line with a constant gradient c.

a stationary body   covers no displacement as time elapses. thus the flat line with   zero gradient.

squares, rhombus, rectangles

step-by-step explanation:

assume that you have 3 different side lengths.   apply the pythagorean theorem here:   square each of the two shortest sides; call them a and b, so that their squares are a² and b².   also square the longest side, calling the result c².

now, if a² + b² = c² is true, the triangle is a right triangle; otherwise it is not a right triangle.

can you post the graph?