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.

AlexMennen comments on Harsanyi's Social Aggregation Theorem and what it means for CEV - Less Wrong Discussion

21 Post author: AlexMennen 05 January 2013 09:38PM

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

Comments (86)

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

Comment author: AlexMennen 07 January 2013 11:39:46PM 1 point [-]

It's unlikely that the weights of existing agents would change under either of those cases, or that the multiplication could be expressed as a weighted sum, or that the multiplication would have axiom 2-ness?

Unlikely that the multiplication could be expressed as a weighted sum (and hence by extension, also unlikely it would obey axiom 2).

Comment author: Vaniver 08 January 2013 12:18:33AM 0 points [-]

I agree in general, because we would need the left inverse of the combined linearly independent individual utilities and e, and that won't exist. We do have freedom to affinely transform the individual utilities before taking their element-wise product, though, and that gives us an extra degree of freedom per agent. I suspect we can do it so long as the number of agents is at least half the number of outcomes.

Comment author: AlexMennen 08 January 2013 12:39:09AM 0 points [-]

Oh, I see what you mean. It should be possible to find some affinely transformed product that is also a linear combination if the number of agents is at least half the number of outcomes, but some arbitrary affinely transformed product is only likely to also be a linear combination if the number of agents is at least the number of outcomes.