Difference between revisions of "Talk:Aumann's agreement theorem"

From Lesswrongwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
("Aumann agreement" page?)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
Re the [http://wiki.lesswrong.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem&diff=4112&oldid=4099 reversion] of 1736 7 September: on reflection, I do agree that there should be a separate page for the theorem itself (which is math) and the intuitive gloss and discussion of implications (which is not), but I'm not sure the offending text belongs in the "Disagreement" article, either--would it be a good idea to create a page for [[Aumann agreement]] referring to the state of agents coming to agree with each other in an Auman-esque fashion? I think that's what I'm going to do. [[User:Z. M. Davis|Z. M. Davis]] 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 
Re the [http://wiki.lesswrong.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem&diff=4112&oldid=4099 reversion] of 1736 7 September: on reflection, I do agree that there should be a separate page for the theorem itself (which is math) and the intuitive gloss and discussion of implications (which is not), but I'm not sure the offending text belongs in the "Disagreement" article, either--would it be a good idea to create a page for [[Aumann agreement]] referring to the state of agents coming to agree with each other in an Auman-esque fashion? I think that's what I'm going to do. [[User:Z. M. Davis|Z. M. Davis]] 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 +
:Rationale here being that two agents coming to agree by updating on each other's beliefs (which I'm calling "Aumann agreement") is distinct from more general discussion of disagreements and why they are problematic amongst rationalists (because there's actually a right answer in questions of fact). [[User:Z. M. Davis|Z. M. Davis]] 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:55, 8 September 2009

Re the reversion of 1736 7 September: on reflection, I do agree that there should be a separate page for the theorem itself (which is math) and the intuitive gloss and discussion of implications (which is not), but I'm not sure the offending text belongs in the "Disagreement" article, either--would it be a good idea to create a page for Aumann agreement referring to the state of agents coming to agree with each other in an Auman-esque fashion? I think that's what I'm going to do. Z. M. Davis 23:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Rationale here being that two agents coming to agree by updating on each other's beliefs (which I'm calling "Aumann agreement") is distinct from more general discussion of disagreements and why they are problematic amongst rationalists (because there's actually a right answer in questions of fact). Z. M. Davis 23:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)