Rationality and Common Knowledge
نویسنده
چکیده
Interactive epistemology is the study of the distribution of knowledge among rational agents, usingmodal logic in the tradition of Hintikka (1962) and Kripke (1963), and agent rationality based on the rational actor model of economic theory, in the tradition of Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944) and Savage (1954). Epistemic game theory, which is interactive epistemology adjoined to classical game theory (Aumann, 1987, 1995), has demonstrated an intimate relationship between rationality and correlated equilibrium (Aumann 1987, Brandenburger and Dekel 1987), and has permitted the rigorous specification of the conditions under which rational agents will play a Nash equilibrium (Aumann and Brandenburger 1995). A central finding in this research is that rational agents use the strategies suggested by game-theoretic equilibrium concepts when there is a communality of knowledge in the form of common probability distributions over the stochastic variables that arise in the play of the game (so-called common priors), and common knowledge of key aspects of the strategic interaction. We say an event E is common knowledge for agents i D 1; : : : ; n if the each agent i knows E, each i knows that each agent j knowsE, each agent k knows that each j knows that each i knows E, and so on (Lewis 1969, Aumann 1976). Specifying when individuals share knowledge and when they know that they share knowledge is among the most challenging of epistemological issues. Contemporary psychological research has shown that these issues cannot be resolved by analyzing the general features of high-level cognitive functioning alone, but in fact concern the particular organization of the human brain. Humans have a theory
منابع مشابه
TR-2010007: Robust Knowledge of Rationality
Stalnaker provided an example of a perfect information game in which common knowledge of rationality does not yield backward induction. However, in his example, knowledge is treated as defeasible: players forfeit their knowledge of rationality at some vertices. This is not how ‘knowledge’ is understood in epistemology where, unlike belief, it is not subject to revision. In this respect, the Sta...
متن کاملRobust Knowledge of Rationality
Stalnaker provided an example of a perfect information game in which common knowledge of rationality does not yield backward induction. However, in his example, knowledge is treated as defeasible: players forfeit their knowledge of rationality at some vertices. This is not how ‘knowledge’ is understood in epistemology where, unlike belief, it is not subject to revision. In this respect, the Sta...
متن کاملTR-2010010: Robust Knowledge and Rationality
In 1995, Aumann proved that in games of perfect information, common knowledge of rationality yields backward induction. In 1998, Stalnaker provided an example of a game in which common knowledge of rationality, once belief revision is taken into account, does not yield backward induction. However, in some pertinent situations in this example, players are allowed to forfeit the rationality condi...
متن کاملRobust Knowledge and Rationality
In 1995, Aumann proved that in games of perfect information, common knowledge of rationality yields backward induction. In 1998, Stalnaker provided an example of a game in which common knowledge of rationality, once belief revision is taken into account, does not yield backward induction. However, in some pertinent situations in this example, players are allowed to forfeit the rationality condi...
متن کاملWeakly Dominated Strategies: a Mystery Cracked
An informal argument shows that common knowledge of rationality implies the iterative elimination of strictly dominated strategies. Rationality here means that players do not play strategies that are strictly dominanted relative to their knowledge. We formalize and prove this claim. When by rationality we mean that players do not play strategies that are weakly dominanted relative to their know...
متن کاملCommon Knowledge and Backward Induction: A Solution to the Paradox
There are games which have a solution only if some of the assumptions of the theory of the game are not common knowledge among the players. In particular, assuming that players' rationality is common knowledge among them makes the theory inconsistent at some information set, and therefore the players become unable to use it to predict each other's strategy choices. In this paper I show that (a)...
متن کامل