Agreeing to Disagree. STOR. Robert J. Aumann. The Annals of Statistics, Vol. 4, No. 6 (Nov., ), Stable URL. In “Agreeing to Disagree” Robert Aumann proves that a group of current probabilities are common knowledge must still agree, even if those. “Agreeing to Disagree,” R. Aumann (). Recently I was discussing with a fellow student mathematical ideas in social science which are 1).

Author: Vudojar Nezil
Country: Sao Tome and Principe
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Photos
Published (Last): 27 March 2016
Pages: 69
PDF File Size: 15.2 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.81 Mb
ISBN: 951-7-71986-540-6
Downloads: 85374
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Meztilrajas

Both are given the same prior probability of the world being in a certain state, and separate sets of further information. Articles with short description. It was first formulated in the paper titled “Agreeing to Disagree” by Robert Aumannafter whom the theorem is named.

Views Read Edit View history. It may be worth noting that Yudkowsky has said he wouldn’t agree to try to reach an Aumann agreement with Hanson. Aumann’s agreement theorem [1] is the result of Robert Aumann’s, winner of the Swedish National Bank’s Prize in Economic Sciences in Abreeing of Alfred Nobelgroundbreaking discovery that a sufficiently respected game theorist can get anything into a peer-reviewed journal.

All-pay auction Alpha—beta pruning Bertrand paradox Bounded rationality Combinatorial game theory Confrontation analysis Coopetition First-move advantage in chess Game mechanics Glossary of game theory List of game theorists List of games in game theory No-win situation Solving chess Topological game Tragedy of the commons Tyranny of small decisions.

Theory and Decision 61 4 — Nash equilibrium Subgame perfection Mertens-stable equilibrium Bayesian Nash equilibrium Perfect Bayesian equilibrium Trembling hand Proper equilibrium Epsilon-equilibrium Correlated equilibrium Sequential equilibrium Sisagree-aumann equilibrium Evolutionarily stable strategy Risk dominance Core Shapley value Pareto efficiency Gibbs equilibrium Quantal response equilibrium Self-confirming equilibrium Strong Nash equilibrium Markov perfect equilibrium.

Business and economics portal Statistics portal Mathematics portal. This page was last edited on 6 Octoberat The Annals of Statistics 4 6 The paper presents a disagree–aumann to measure how distant priors are from being common. Scott Aaronson [3] sharpens this theorem by removing the common prior and limiting the number of messages communicated.

Essentially, the proof goes that if they were not, it would mean that they did not trust the accuracy of one another’s information, or did not trust the other’s computation, since a different probability being found by a rational agent is itself evidence of further evidence, and a rational agent should recognize this, and also recognize that one would, and that this would also be recognized, and so on.


By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Their posterior probabilities must then be the same. This theorem is almost as much a favorite of LessWrong as the “Sword of Bayes” [4] itself, because of its popular phrasing along the lines of “two agents acting rationally Simply knowing that another agent observed some information and came to their respective conclusion will force each to revise their beliefs, resulting eventually in total agreement tk the correct posterior.

Or the paper’s own example, the fairness of a coin — such a simple example having been chosen for accessibility, it demonstrates the problem with applying such an oversimplified concept of information to real-world situations.

Yudkowsky ‘s mentor Robin Hanson tries to handwave this with something about genetics and environment, [9] but to have sufficient common knowledge of genetics and environment for this to work practically would require agrreeing few calls to Laplace’s demon. Aumann’s agreement theorem says that two people acting rationally in tto certain precise sense and with common knowledge of each other’s beliefs cannot agree to disagree.

Aumann : Agreeing to Disagree

Community Saloon bar To do list What is going on? For such careful definitions of “perfectly rational” and “common knowledge” this is equivalent to saying that two functioning calculators will not give different answers on the same input.

External links Twitter Facebook Discord. Studying the same issue from a different perspective, a research paper by Ziv Hellman considers what happens if priors are not common.

Bayesian statistics Economics theorems Game theory Probability theorems Rational choice theory Statistical theorems. However, Robin Hanson has presented an disagree-aumabn that Bayesians who agree about the processes that gave rise to their priors e.

Aumann’s agreement theorem

Views Read Edit Fossil record. Unlike many questionable applications of theorems, this one appears to have been the intention of the paper itself, which itself cites a paper defending the application of such techniques to the real world.

Thus, two rational Bayesian agents with the same priors and who know each other’s posteriors will have to agree. Arrow’s impossibility theorem Aumann’s agreement theorem Folk theorem Minimax theorem Nash’s theorem Purification theorem Revelation principle Zermelo’s theorem. Polemarchakis, We can’t disagree forever, Journal of Economic Theory 28′: The one-sentence summary is “you can’t actually agree to disagree”: In game theoryAumann’s agreement theorem is a theorem which demonstrates that rational agents with common knowledge of each other’s beliefs cannot agree to disagree.


Topics in game theory. Retrieved from ” https: The Annals of Statistics. Consider two agents tasked with performing Bayesian analysis this is “perfectly rational”. Cooperative game Determinacy Escalation of commitment Extensive-form game First-player and second-player win Game complexity Graphical game Hierarchy of beliefs Information set Normal-form game Preference Sequential game Simultaneous game Simultaneous action selection Solved game Succinct game. This page was last modified on 12 Septemberat Both sets of information include the posterior probability arrived at by the other, as well as the fact that their prior probabilities are the same, the fact that the other knows its posterior probability, the set of events that might affect probability, the fact that the other knows these things, the fact that the other knows it knows these things, the fact that the other knows it knows the other knows it knows, ad infinitum this is “common knowledge”.

Scott Aaronson has shown that this is indeed the case. More specifically, if two people are genuine Bayesian rationalists with common priorsand if they each have common knowledge of their individual posterior probabilitiesthen their posteriors must be equal. International Journal of Game Theory.

“Agreeing to Disagree,” R. Aumann () | A Fine Theorem

Scott Aaronson believes that Aumanns’s therorem can act as a corrective to overconfidence, and a guide disagree-aummann to what disagreements should look like. Unless explicitly noted otherwise, all content licensed as indicated by RationalWiki: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. For concerns on copyright infringement please see: Retrieved from ” https: