Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:13:56.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why the Empty Shells Were Not Fired: A Semi-Bibliographical Note*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2012

Itzhak Gilboa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This note documents Aumann's reason for omitting the “empty shells” argument for the common prior assumption from the final version of “Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality.” It then continues to discuss the argument and concludes that rational entities cannot learn their own identity; if they do not know it a priori, they never will.

Type
Research Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , October 2011 , pp. 301 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aumann, R. J. 1976. “Agreeing to Disagree.” Annals of Statistics 4: 1236–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, R. J. 1985. “Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality.” Working paper.Google Scholar
Aumann, R. J. 1987. “Correlated Equilibrium as an Expression of Bayesian Rationality.” Econometrica 55: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, R. J. 1999a. “Interactive Epistemology I: Knowledge.” International Journal of Game Theory 28: 263–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aumann, R. J. 1999b. “Interactive Epistemology II: Probability.” International Journal of Game Theory 28: 301–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, D. and Dubins, L.. 1962. “Merging of Opinions with Increasing Information.” Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38: 882–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandenburger, A. and Dekel, E.. 1987. “Rationalizability and Correlated Equilibria.” Econometrica 55: 1391–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagin, R., Halpern, J. Y., Moses, Y., and Vardi, M.. 1995. Reasoning About Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1953. “Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk Taking.” Journal of Political Economy 61: 434–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, J. 1955. “Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics, and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility.” Journal of Political Economy 63: 309–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalai, E. and Lehrer, E.. 1993. “Rational Learning Leads to Nash Equilibrium.” Econometrica 61: 1019–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalai, E. and Lehrer, E.. 1994. “Weak and Strong Merging of Opinions.” Journal of Mathematical Economics 23: 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaneko, M. and Nagashima, T.. 1996. “Game Logic and Its Applications I.” Studia Logica 57: 325–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaneko, M. and Nagashima, T.. 1997. “Game Logic and Its Applications II.” Studia Logica 58: 273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1979/1983. “Attitudes De Dicto and De Se.” The Philosophical Review 88(4): 513–43 Reprinted in Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, ch. 10. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, J.-F., and Zamir, S.. 1985. “Formulation of Bayesian Analysis for Games with Incomplete Information.” International Journal of Game Theory 14: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, L. J. 1954.The Foundations of Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar