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
    The converse establishes a non-trivial necessary conditio... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→The trivial converse — that any strategy profile surviving IESDS is consistent with common knowledge of rationality — is not particularly interesting.

    The converse establishes a non-trivial necessary condition: no IESDS-eliminated strategy can ever be rational under CKR, which constrains the space of rational play.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.IESDS eliminates strategies that survive no consistent belief assignment under common knowledge of rationality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If a strategy survives IESDS, some player could rationally believe opponents play it under CKR assumptions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The converse clarifies that rationality under CKR is strictly more restrictive than mere iterated elimination.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.IESDS and CKR may diverge: CKR allows strategies IESDS eliminates if higher-order beliefs permit them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The claim assumes CKR and IESDS are equivalent, but CKR permits weaker rationality conditions in some models.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Empirically, players use IESDS-eliminated strategies rationally when CKR assumptions actually fail in practice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedModality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Empirically, players use IESDS-eliminated strategies rationally when CKR assumpt...IESDS and CKR may diverge: CKR allows strategies IESDS eliminates if higher-orde...IESDS eliminates strategies that survive no consistent belief assignment under c...If a strategy survives IESDS, some player could rationally believe opponents pla...
    +3 moreShow less
    The claim assumes CKR and IESDS are equivalent, but CKR permits weaker rationali...The converse clarifies that rationality under CKR is strictly more restrictive t...The trivial converse — that any strategy profile surviving IESDS is consistent w...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit