Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Giacomo Bonanno — Carmelics
    Thinkers/Giacomo Bonanno
    GB

    Giacomo Bonanno

    contemporaryEpistemic Game Theory, Formal Philosophy

    Giacomo Bonanno is a contemporary economist and formal philosopher specializing in the epistemic foundations of game theory. He has made significant contributions to understanding belief revision, rationality, and knowledge in strategic interaction, particularly through the lens of modal and dynamic logic. His work bridges economic theory and philosophical logic, examining how agents form and update beliefs in sequential and simultaneous games.

    Notable Achievements

    1

    Developed formal frameworks for belief revision in sequential games using AGM-style plausibility models

    2

    Analyzed the epistemic conditions underlying backward induction and forward induction in extensive-form games

    3

    Clarified the logical sources of disagreement between Aumann's and Stalnaker's models of rationality in games

    4

    Applied modal and dynamic logic to formalize notions of common belief and common knowledge in strategic settings

    5

    Contributed to distinguishing on-path from off-path belief updating in game-theoretic reasoning

    Positions & Arguments(2)

    Skepticism

    claim

    The difference in conclusions between Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (1998) is due to differing models of belief revision upon deviation from the backward induction path

    claim

    Plausibility updates in sequential games during actual play differ in interpretation from plausibility updates used in pregame deliberation for Backward Induction.

    Truth & Knowledge

    claim

    At a Glance

    Ideas

    2

    Topics

    2

    Era

    contemporary

    Tradition

    Epistemic Game Theory, Formal Philosophy

    Topic Influence

    Truth & Knowledge2
    Skepticism2

    Related Thinkers

    David Lewis2 shared

    The difference in conclusions between Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (1998) is due to differing models of belief revision upon deviation from the backward induction path

    claim

    Plausibility updates in sequential games during actual play differ in interpretation from plausibility updates used in pregame deliberation for Backward Induction.

    Immanuel Kant
    2 shared
    Boyd2 shared
    Brian Skyrms2 shared
    Stathis Psillos2 shared
    Bertrand Russell2 shared
    David Hume2 shared
    Aristotle2 shared

    Dive Deeper

    Explore Truth & Knowledge→See Skepticism→