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 Harsanyi's type space construction assumes common knowledge of the prior, but this assumption is not derivable from the relational model structure alone.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The relational model already encodes beliefs through type-dependent belief functions, which implicitly determine a unique consistent prior via Bayesian rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any coherent assignment of types that respects the relational structure automatically satisfies common knowledge of the prior under standard rationality assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Treating the prior as separately 'derivable' misunderstands that Harsanyi's construction is a representation theorem mapping structures into a specific mathematical form, not an inference problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Relational models specify agent beliefs about states and payoffs, but say nothing about beliefs about the probability distribution over states themselves.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Common knowledge of the prior requires agreement on beliefs about beliefs across all possible types, which is a substantive epistemic requirement beyond relational structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Harsanyi's construction imposes the prior as an external constraint; it is not logically entailed by the relational specification of preferences and information partitions.
      ?

      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.