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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Deleting weakly dominated strategies just like strictly dominated strategies has odd consequences

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If s2 is deleted because s1 weakly dominates it, then column t1 becomes strictly dominated
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This process selects s1-t2 as the unique Nash Equilibrium solution
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kreps demonstrates via payoff perturbation that this selection procedure yields counterintuitive results when payoffs are changed slightly
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Weak dominance lacks the epistemic robustness of strict dominance: a weakly dominated strategy remains rational under at least one opponent belief.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Savage's sure-thing principle requires dominance reasoning to hold across all states, not merely most; weak dominance violates this by permitting tied outcomes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Iterative deletion procedures derive their justification from common knowledge of rationality, but weak dominance deletion requires stronger assumptions that are not grounded in that basis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Selten's perfectness criterion shows that rational equilibrium selection must be stable under small perturbations, which Kreps's payoff examples directly demonstrate weak dominance deletion fails to satisfy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A solution concept that reverses its recommendations under arbitrarily small payoff changes cannot track the modal facts about what players would rationally do, violating Lewis's constraint on counterfactual stability.
      ?

      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.