منابع مشابه
Agreeing on decisions: an analysis with counterfactuals
Moses & Nachum ([7]) identify conceptual flaws in Bacharach’s generalization ([3]) of Aumann’s seminal “agreeing to disagree” result ([1]). Essentially, Bacharach’s framework requires agents’ decision functions to be defined over events that are informationally meaningless for the agents. In this paper, we argue that the analysis of the agreement theorem should be carried out in information str...
متن کاملAgreeing on Defeasible Commitments
Social commitments are developed for multi-agent systems according to the current practice in law regarding contract formation and breach. Deafeasible commitments are used to provide a useful link between multi-agent systems and legal doctrines. The proposed model makes the commitments more expressive relative to contract law, improving the model for the life cycle of the commitments. As a cons...
متن کاملAgreeing on Decisions After All
The Decision Agreement Principle, originally promulgated by Cave and Bacharach (independently), asserts that if like-minded decision makers commonly know each other’s decisions, then the decisions are the same. Subsequently, Moses and Nachum discovered a flaw in the reasoning underlying the principle. Here we provide a careful, coherent, and correct formulation of the principle, which avoids th...
متن کاملDeludedly Agreeing to Agree
We study conditions relating to the impossibility of agreeing to disagree in models of interactive KD45 belief (in contrast to models of S5 knowledge, which are used in nearly all the agreements literature). We show that even when the truth axiom is not assumed it turns out that players will find it impossible to agree to disagree under fairly broad conditions.
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: Marine Policy
سال: 2019
ISSN: 0308-597X
DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.12.009