= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
conchis comments on How Not to be Stupid: Brewing a Nice Cup of Utilitea - 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 (18)
I'm afraid all of this is all still a bit vague for me, sorry.
Are you familiar with the standard preference representation results in economics (e.g. the sort you'd find in a decent graduate level textbook)? The reason I ask is that the inability to represent lexicographic preferences is pretty well-known, and the fact that you weren't aware of it makes me suspect even more strongly than before that you may be trying to do something that's already been done to death without realizing it.
I think we're talking past each other on the risk aversion front. Probably my fault, as my comment was somewhat vague. (Maybe also an issue of inferential distance.)
More I think about it though, seems like hyperreals, now that I know of them, would let one do a utility function for lexicographic preferences, no?
And nothing for you to apologize for. I mean, if there's this much confusion about what I'm writing, it seems likely that the problem is at my end. (And I fully admit, there's much basic material I'm unfamiliar with)