= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Cyan comments on Teachable Rationality Skills - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (257)
That was way too densely packed for my sleep-deprived brain to parse. Would you be willing to write a post (possibly Discussion post) spelling this out less succinctly? It seems important to get this idea out into the LW-sphere given how much cred the agreement theorem has around here.
It's not just densely packed - it makes no sense unless you read the paper first, and read some other things necessary to understand that paper. I'd like to write a post - but not right now.
I know enough game theory to prove versions of Aumann's theorem, but I have not read the paper, and your point in (2) makes no sense, period.
The correct game-theoretic statement of 1 knows that 2 knows that E is that E includes P1(P2(w)).
The meet of X and Y is about common knowledge. Saying that E is common knowledge is stronger than saying that 1 knows that 2 knows it. It also implies, for instance, that 2 knows that 1 knows that 2 knows it.