Two Blegs
post by talisman · 2009-03-26T04:42:32.223Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 5 comments- A good OB-level proof or explication of the innards of Aumann's theorem, much more precise than Hanson and Cowen's but less painful than Aumann's original or this other one.
- Stories of how people have busted open questions or controversies using rationalist tools. (I think this in particular will be useful to learners.)
5 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by Scott Alexander (Yvain) · 2009-03-26T09:54:38.281Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
These aren't real blegs! They don't contain a nugget of vanadium ore!
...ahem. Sorry. I agree with both these points. I might try a post on the second one soon.
comment by Z_M_Davis · 2009-03-26T16:50:50.264Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A good OB-level proof or explication of the innards of Aumann's theorem
See Hal Finney's "Coin Guessing Game" for a clean toy model.
Replies from: talismancomment by badger · 2009-03-26T05:16:37.139Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
A good OB-level proof or explication of the innards of Aumann's theorem, much more precise than Hanson and Cowen's but less painful than Aumann's original or this other one.
Not that I am necessarily going to tackle this, but how math intensive is "much more precise" in your mind? Do you think there is any particular hanging point in existing explanations that prevents full understanding?
Replies from: talisman↑ comment by talisman · 2009-03-26T22:41:13.462Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'd like to understand the precise arguments so that I can understand the limits, so that I can think about Robin and Eliezer's disagreement, so I can get intuition for the Hanson/Cowen statement that "A more detailed analysis says not only that people must ultimately agree, but also that the discussion path of their alternating expressed opinions must follow a random walk." I'm guessing that past the terminology it's not actually that complicated, but I haven't been able to find the four hours to understand all the terminology and structure.