Agreeing to Disagree with Limit Knowledge
نویسندگان
چکیده
The possibility for agents to agree to disagree is considered in an extended epistemic-topological framework. In such an enriched context, Aumann’s impossibility theorem is shown to no longer hold. More precisely, agents with a common prior belief satisfying limit knowledge instead of common knowledge of their posterior beliefs may actually entertain distinct posterior beliefs. Hence, agents can actually agree to disagree. In particular, agreeing to disagree with limit knowledge is illustrated within a representative epistemic-topological situation.
منابع مشابه
“Agreeing to disagree” type results: a decision-theoretic approach
This paper explores interactive epistemology within Morris’ [S. Morris, Alternative definitions of knowledge, in: M.O.L. Bacharach, L.-A. Gerard-Varet, P. Mongin, H.S. Shin (Eds.), Epistemic Logic and the Theory of Games and Decisions, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, 1997, pp. 217–233] framework of knowledge. Specifically, this paper proves a generalized “agreeing to disagree” result. 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 کاملAgreeing to Disagree in Infinite Information Structures
Several authors have recently studied the game theory aspects of generalized information structures, that is, information structures that are not partitions. Such structures are needed when we wish to impose some restrictions on the concept of knowledge or bound rationality (see [3] and [4]). Some theories that were developed for partitions do not hold for generalized information structures or ...
متن کاملDELUDEDLY AGREEING TO AGREE By
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). Agreement and disagreement are studied under models of belief in three broad settings: non-probabilistic decision models, probabilistic belief revision of priors, and dynamic communication ...
متن کاملEuthanasia: agreeing to disagree?
In discussions about the legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia it is sometimes claimed that what should happen in a liberal society is that the two sides in the debate "agree to disagree". This paper explores what is entailed by agreeing to disagree and shows that this is considerably more complicated than what is usually believed to be the case. Agreeing to disagree is philosophically p...
متن کامل