Difference between revisions of "Talk:Common priors"
From Lesswrongwiki
(aren't "common priors" priors that are common knowledge?) |
Z. M. Davis (talk | contribs) (denotative confusion) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I strongly suspect that "common priors" means priors that are [[Wikipedia:common knowledge (logic)]], not just same priors. Please research it better. --[[User:Vladimir Nesov|Vladimir Nesov]] 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | I strongly suspect that "common priors" means priors that are [[Wikipedia:common knowledge (logic)]], not just same priors. Please research it better. --[[User:Vladimir Nesov|Vladimir Nesov]] 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | :I had been given to understand that ''common priors'' and ''common knowledge'' are distinct concepts and that the original Aumann result required both. "Agreeing to Disagree" opens: "If two people have the ''same priors'', and their posteriors for a given event A are ''common knowledge'', then these posteriors must be equal" (emphasis mine). But I'm by no means really up to speed on this literature, so I could be wrong. ---[[User:Z. M. Davis|Z. M. Davis]] 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 13:30, 11 September 2009
I strongly suspect that "common priors" means priors that are Wikipedia:common knowledge (logic), not just same priors. Please research it better. --Vladimir Nesov 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- I had been given to understand that common priors and common knowledge are distinct concepts and that the original Aumann result required both. "Agreeing to Disagree" opens: "If two people have the same priors, and their posteriors for a given event A are common knowledge, then these posteriors must be equal" (emphasis mine). But I'm by no means really up to speed on this literature, so I could be wrong. ---Z. M. Davis 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
