MichaelBishop comments on The Domain of Your Utility Function - Less Wrong

24 Post author: Peter_de_Blanc 23 June 2009 04:58AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (94)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: timtyler 24 June 2009 08:38:18PM -1 points [-]

Intransitive preferences don't mean that you can't describe an agent's actions with a utitilty function. So what if an agent prefers A to B, B to C and C to A? It might mean they will drive in circles and waste their energy - but it doesn't mean you can't describe their preferences with a utility function. All it means is that their utility function will not be as simple as it could be.

Comment author: MichaelBishop 24 June 2009 09:02:55PM 0 points [-]

Its not clear you're contradicting Cyan. You describe the converse of what he describes.

Even if a utility function can be written down which allows intransitive preferences, its worth noting that transitive preferences is a standard assumption.

Comment author: timtyler 24 June 2009 09:27:54PM 0 points [-]

ISTM that if an agent's preferences cannot be described by a utility function, then it is because the agent is either spatially or temporally infinite - or because it is uncomputable.