Like I said in my original comment, it’s stating your opinion without giving any reason to believe in that opinion. If you don’t say why you believe that it’s an issue with the formalism rather than the concept, you’re adding more noise than information. Facts are better than opinions.
His answer: “Au, Mann!” (“au” means “ouch” in German, his original mother tongue). Aw man, bad puns are my personal demon (works phonetically). Amen to that being a bad case of nomen est omen.
Aumann must be rolling in his grave from disagreeing with all the misuses of his agreement theorem as applying in a social context. Figure of speech, since he’s still alive.
There was also this:
What’s wrong with that? I’d say it’s a prevalent problem when trying to formalize complicated concepts.
Like I said in my original comment, it’s stating your opinion without giving any reason to believe in that opinion. If you don’t say why you believe that it’s an issue with the formalism rather than the concept, you’re adding more noise than information. Facts are better than opinions.
Take that, Aumann!
His answer: “Au, Mann!” (“au” means “ouch” in German, his original mother tongue). Aw man, bad puns are my personal demon (works phonetically). Amen to that being a bad case of nomen est omen.
Aumann must be rolling in his grave from disagreeing with all the misuses of his agreement theorem as applying in a social context. Figure of speech, since he’s still alive.
ETA: Au-mann puns, the poor man’s gold!