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 Pearce (1984) shows that in finite games, iterative elimination of weakly dominated strategies converges to the same set as admissibility, suggesting the two criteria are extensionally equivalent in relevant cases.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Convergence to the same set does not establish conceptual equivalence; different logical paths to identical outcomes can reflect fundamentally different normative commitments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pearce's result may depend on restrictive conditions (e.g., specific game structures) that limit generalizability beyond the cases where equivalence was demonstrated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Extensional equivalence in finite games tells us nothing about infinite games or continuous strategy spaces where the two criteria may diverge significantly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Finite games have complete strategy spaces, making iterative elimination processes deterministic and comparable to axiomatic criteria like admissibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Pearce's convergence result provides empirical evidence that two independently motivated solution concepts yield identical predictions in relevant domains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Extensional equivalence in finite games justifies treating admissibility and iterated weak dominance elimination as interchangeable for practical analysis.
      ?

      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.