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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A sequential equilibrium requires both a strategy profile and a system of beliefs that are mutually consistent and sequentially rational

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Bayes's rule is undefined at off-equilibrium-path information sets reached with probability zero, making belief consistency indeterminate precisely where it matters most.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kreps and Wilson's own refinement leaves substantial freedom in specifying off-path beliefs, meaning sequential equilibrium underdetermines rational play in the cases it was designed to resolve.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Binmore and Reny demonstrated that sequential rationality presupposes a counterfactual theory of what players would do at unreached nodes, yet no agreed interpretation of counterfactuals in extensive-form games exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without a settled semantics for counterfactual reasoning under irrationality, mutual consistency between strategies and beliefs is a formal artifact rather than a substantive rationality requirement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.A sequential equilibrium has two parts: a strategy profile for each player and a system of beliefs for each player
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The system of beliefs assigns to each information set a probability distribution over nodes in that set, representing the player's beliefs about where in the information set play has reached
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The beliefs must be consistent with Bayes's rule
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42