You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

wedrifid comments on Econ/Game theory question - Less Wrong Discussion

12 Post author: Psychohistorian 11 May 2011 08:17PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (56)

Comments (56)

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

Comment author: wedrifid 11 May 2011 09:25:14PM 3 points [-]

Thanks for the reference.

You can check the assumptions used, but I think they match up to this scenario.

I read through to find the assumptions. It introduces the ability for either party to make precommitments (page 130) and a four stage negotiation process.

Comment author: endoself 11 May 2011 10:31:54PM 0 points [-]

It introduces the ability for either party to make precommitments (page 130)

So it applies to perfectly rational agents.

and a four stage negotiation process.

A bit later he gives an alternate derivation.

Comment author: wedrifid 12 May 2011 04:48:23AM 0 points [-]

So it applies to perfectly rational agents.

The assumption in the actual document is that there is an umpire of some sort which can be relied on to enforce the pre-commitments.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit