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
    Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (1998) reach contradictory re... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Skepticism
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→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

    Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (1998) reach contradictory results

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    SkepticismTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    All sources support it1 linkedCausation

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Skepticism
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    1 linked

    Related

    Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (1998) share the same epistemic condition of rationa...The difference in conclusions between Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (1998) is due ...The only crucial difference identified is how each models players' belief change...

    Similar

    The difference in conclusions between Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (199...81%Bacciagaluppi (1995) and Clifton (1996a) showed that such property ass...77%Bott and Milnor (1958) independently proved the same result.77%Aumann (1995) and Stalnaker (1998) share the same epistemic condition ...75%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: epistemic-game
    View source passageHide passage
    The most well-known illustration of this is through the comparison of two apparently contradictory results regarding the consequences of assuming rationality and common knowledge of rationality in extensive games. Aumann (1995) showed that this epistemic condition implies that the players will play according to the backward induction solution while Stalnaker (1998) argued that this is not necessarily true. The crucial difference between these two results is the way in which they model the player

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective