Common knowledge and consensus with noisy communication
Parikh and Krasucki (1990, JET 52) have suggested in an informal manner that a consensus does not require common knowledge. Weyers (1992, CORE DP 9228) has proved that their model does not permit such a conclusion, and that a more general one has to be constructed. Heifetz (1996, JET 70) has given an example with three agents, inspired by computer science works, which illustrates the intuition of the first authors, i.e. where a consensus is obtained without common knowledge of it. We propose a general setting of noisy communication to confirm this result. We show that for any non public and noisy communication, no event can become common knowledge if it was not at the beginning, but that under some assumptions a consensus and arbitrary high levels of interactive knowledge are achievable. A minimal example is given, with two agents and two states. Nevertheless, for public and noisy communication, some results on common knowledge are obtained, depending on the richness of available language. We apply our results to describe some conditions that ensure or prevent epistemic conditions for Nash equilibrium. In general, non public and noisy communication is not sufficient for the conjectures to form, during time, a Nash equilibrium, even if the game and mutual rationality are mutually known. However, with only two agents, or with a noisy and public communication protocol, sufficient conditions are given for the conjectures to form a Nash equilibrium in a finite number of communication periods.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin, "undated".
"Approximate Common Knowledge and Co-ordination: Recent Lessons from Game Theory,"
CARESS Working Papres
97-8, University of Pennsylvania Center for Analytic Research and Economics in the Social Sciences.
- Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin, "undated". "Approximate Common Knowledge and Co-ordination: Recent Lessons from Game Theory," Penn CARESS Working Papers 72042421d029130510780dde2, Penn Economics Department.
- Stephen Morris & Hyun Song Shin, "undated". ""Approximate Common Knowledge and Co-ordination: Recent Lessons from Game Theory''," CARESS Working Papres 96-07, University of Pennsylvania Center for Analytic Research and Economics in the Social Sciences.
- Robert Aumann & Adam Brandenburger, 2014. "Epistemic Conditions for Nash Equilibrium," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: The Language of Game Theory Putting Epistemics into the Mathematics of Games, chapter 5, pages 113-136 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
- Aumann, Robert & Brandenburger, Adam, 1995. "Epistemic Conditions for Nash Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(5), pages 1161-1180, September.
- Ronald Fagin & Joseph Y. Halpern & Yoram Moses & Moshe Y. Vardi, 2003. "Reasoning About Knowledge," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262562006, July.
- Rubinstein, Ariel, 1989. "The Electronic Mail Game: Strategic Behavior under "Almost Common Knowledge."," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(3), pages 385-391, June.
- WEYERS , Sonia, 1992. "Three results on communication, information and common knowledge," CORE Discussion Papers 1992028, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Krasucki, Paul, 1996. "Protocols Forcing Consensus," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 266-272, July.
- Parikh, Rohit & Krasucki, Paul, 1990. "Communication, consensus, and knowledge," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 178-189, October.
- Cave, Jonathan A. K., 1983. "Learning to agree," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 147-152.
- Dulleck, Uwe, 1997. "A note on the E-mail game: Bounded rationality and induction," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,47, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
- Geanakoplos, John D. & Polemarchakis, Heraklis M., 1982. "We can't disagree forever," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 192-200, October.
- John Geanakoplos & Heracles M. Polemarchakis, 1982. "We Can't Disagree Forever," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 639, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
- Heifetz, Aviad, 1996. "Comment on Consensus without Common Knowledge," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 273-277, July.
- Geanakoplos, John, 1994. "Common knowledge," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 40, pages 1437-1496 Elsevier.
- Nishihara, Ko, 1991. "A note on the equivalence of the two definitions of common knowledge," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 177-178, April.
- Robert J Aumann, 1999. "Agreeing to Disagree," Levine's Working Paper Archive 512, David K. Levine. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)