Godkjent av

Agree To Disagree Agreement Theorem

So even if one accepts rationality and honesty in all parties, different priors are the expected norm, and Aumann`s theorem generally does not apply. This is not to say that mathematicians and scientists are wrong when they change tables, if they feel the urge. But other areas aren`t necessarily wrong if they maintain their differences – because disagreements and diversity of opinion are useful cognitive resources that shouldn`t be abandoned at the same time. 1. On issues like politics, we don`t trust our opponents, which is why honesty and rationality don`t apply. But even on topics like mathematics, where honesty and rationality apply, a disagreement after a round of news typically moves on to something else: the transfer of information. It is not enough for me to know your opinion; I want to know how you got there. Along the way, I will play the skeptics to force you to give me the information I want. By the way, I must mention that my work proves the theorem 1/(δ2) taking into account the expectations of XA2 and XB2. Yan Zhang, trainer at SPARC, suggested to me that it might be more intuitive to talk about Var[XA] and Var[XB] (which, in this case, are far from the squares expected by an immutable constant), and I decided to take up his nice proposal in the blog post, on the one hand because the latter was more beautiful when it was rendered in HTML. 🙂 The question arises as to whether such an agreement can be concluded within a reasonable period of time and whether this is effectively possible from a mathematical point of view.

. . .

Comments are closed.