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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.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.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bernheim (1984) and Pearce (1984) showed that rationalizable strategies—not just Nash equilibria—are the proper solution concept under CKR, making the boundary IESDS draws theoretically load-bearing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A result's interest is not diminished merely because its proof is constructive; the type-space construction reveals that CKR imposes no further constraints beyond IESDS survival, which is itself a substantive finding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aumann and Brandenburger's (1995) framework shows that characterizing what CKR permits, not just what it requires, is essential to demarcating the epistemic content of solution concepts.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The converse's 'triviality' presupposes that only uniqueness results are interesting, but in modal epistemology, permissibility results—showing what is consistent with a knowledge state—carry independent theoretical weight.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.One can always construct a type space that assigns probability 1 to any given strategy profile, making the converse hold vacuously.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A result that holds by arbitrary construction of a type space does not provide meaningful epistemic constraints.
      ?

      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.