Agreeing To Disagree: A Survey
AbstractAumann (1976) put forward a formal definition of common knowledge and used it to prove that two ""like minded"" individuals cannot ""agree to disagree"" in the following sense. If they start from a common prior and update the probability of an event E (using Bayes'' rule) on the basis of private information, then it cannot be common knowledge between them that individual 1 assigns probability p to E and individual 2 assigns probability q to E with p Â¹ q. In other words, if their posteriors of event E are common knowledge then they must coincide. Aumann''s Agreement Theorem has given rise to a large literature which we review in this paper. The results are classified according to whether they are probabilistic (Bayesian) or qualitative. Particular attention is paid to the issue of how to interpret the notion of Harsanyi consistency as a (local) property of belief hierarchies.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University of California, Davis, Department of Economics in its series Working Papers with number 9718.
Date of creation: 09 Jan 2003
Date of revision:
Other versions of this item:
You can help add them by filling out this form.
CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
- Arnoud W.A. Boot & Anjan V. Thakor, 2003.
"The Economic Value of Flexibility when there is Disagreement,"
Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers
03-002/2, Tinbergen Institute.
- Boot, Arnoud W A & Thakor, Anjan, 2003. "The Economic Value of Flexibility When There is Disagreement," CEPR Discussion Papers 3709, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Dov Samet, 2006.
"Agreeing to disagree: The non-probabilistic case,"
321307000000000536, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Robin Hanson, 2003. "For Bayesian Wannabes, Are Disagreements Not About Information?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 105-123, March.
- Arnoud W.A. Boot & Anjan V. Thakor, 2003. "The Economic Value of Flexibility when there is Disagreement," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 03-002/2, Tinbergen Institute.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Scott Dyer).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.