Common knowledge and consensus with noisy communication
Parikh and Krasucki (1990) suggested in an informal manner that a consensus does not require common knowledge. Weyers (1992) proved that their model does not permit such a conclusion and that a more general one has to be constructed. Heifetz (1996) gave an example with three agents inspired by computer science which illustrates the intuition of Parikh and Krasucki (1990), 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 common knowledge cannot emerge with any non-public and noisy communication protocol. But, with ``fair\'\' protocols and a sufficiently rich language, a consensus and arbitrary high levels of interactive knowledge are achievable. A minimal example with two agents and two states is given. Nevertheless, for public and noisy communication, some results on common knowledge and consensus are obtained. 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.
|Date of creation:||2000|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: PEGE. 61, Aven. de la Forêt-Noire 67000 Strasbourg|
Phone: +33 3 68 85 20 69
Fax: +33 3 68 85 20 70
Web page: http://www.beta-umr7522.fr/
More information through EDIRC
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)