IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-01094784.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Some Non-Classical Approaches to the Branderburger-Keisler Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Can Baskent

    (SEMAGRAMME - Semantic Analysis of Natural Language - Inria Nancy - Grand Est - Inria - Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique - LORIA - NLPKD - Department of Natural Language Processing & Knowledge Discovery - LORIA - Laboratoire Lorrain de Recherche en Informatique et ses Applications - Inria - Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

In this paper, we discuss a well-known self-referential paradox in epis-temic game theory, the Brandenburger -Keisler paradox. We approach the paradox from two different perspectives: non-well-founded set theory and paraconsistent logic.

Suggested Citation

  • Can Baskent, 2014. "Some Non-Classical Approaches to the Branderburger-Keisler Paradox," Working Papers hal-01094784, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01094784
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://inria.hal.science/hal-01094784
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://inria.hal.science/hal-01094784/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Unknown, 2006. "UFW Contract: Montpelier Orchards Management Company," United Farm Workers (UFW) Contracts 236469, University of California, Davis, Changing Face.
    2. Heifetz, Aviad, 1996. "Non-well-founded-Type Spaces," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 202-217, October.
    3. John C. Harsanyi, 1967. "Games with Incomplete Information Played by "Bayesian" Players, I-III Part I. The Basic Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 159-182, November.
    4. Mariotti, Thomas & Meier, Martin & Piccione, Michele, 2005. "Hierarchies of beliefs for compact possibility models," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 303-324, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ganguli, Jayant & Heifetz, Aviad & Lee, Byung Soo, 2016. "Universal interactive preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 237-260.
    2. Meier, Martin, 2008. "Universal knowledge-belief structures," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 53-66, January.
    3. Michael Trost, 2014. "On the Equivalence between Iterated Application of Choice Rules and Common Belief of Applying these Rules," Jena Economics Research Papers 2014-032, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    4. Trost, Michael, 2019. "On the equivalence between iterated application of choice rules and common belief of applying these rules," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 1-37.
    5. Martin Meier & Burkhard Schipper, 2014. "Bayesian games with unawareness and unawareness perfection," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 56(2), pages 219-249, June.
    6. Huseyin Cavusoglu & Srinivasan Raghunathan, 2004. "Configuration of Detection Software: A Comparison of Decision and Game Theory Approaches," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(3), pages 131-148, September.
    7. Strzalecki, Tomasz, 2014. "Depth of reasoning and higher order beliefs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 108-122.
    8. Yoo, Seung Han, 2014. "Learning a population distribution," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 188-201.
    9. Olivier Coibion & Yuriy Gorodnichenko & Saten Kumar & Jane Ryngaert, 2021. "Do You Know that I Know that You Know…? Higher-Order Beliefs in Survey Data," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(3), pages 1387-1446.
    10. Hausken, Kjell & Levitin, Gregory, 2009. "Minmax defense strategy for complex multi-state systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 577-587.
    11. Yehuda Levy, 2013. "A Cantor Set of Games with No Shift-Homogeneous Equilibrium Selection," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 492-503, August.
    12. Amanda Friedenberg & H. Jerome Keisler, 2021. "Iterated dominance revisited," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(2), pages 377-421, September.
    13. Pintér, Miklós & Udvari, Zsolt, 2011. "Generalized type spaces," MPRA Paper 34107, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Arun G. Chandrasekhar & Robert Townsend & Juan Pablo Xandri, 2018. "Financial Centrality and Liquidity Provision," NBER Working Papers 24406, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Benjamin Patrick Evans & Mikhail Prokopenko, 2021. "Bounded rationality for relaxing best response and mutual consistency: The Quantal Hierarchy model of decision-making," Papers 2106.15844, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    16. Sundström, David, 2016. "On Specification and Inference in the Econometrics of Public Procurement," Umeå Economic Studies 931, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    17. Scandizzo, Pasquale L. & Ventura, Marco, 2010. "Sharing risk through concession contracts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(1), pages 363-370, November.
    18. Tsakas, Elias, 2014. "Epistemic equivalence of extended belief hierarchies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 126-144.
    19. Waśniewski, Krzysztof, 2012. "Local governments’ fiscal policy as a factor of urban development – evidence from Poland," MPRA Paper 39176, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Estrella Alonso & Joaquin Sanchez-Soriano & Juan Tejada, 2015. "A parametric family of two ranked objects auctions: equilibria and associated risk," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 225(1), pages 141-160, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Epistemic Game Theory; Paraconsistency;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-01094784. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.