Those aren’t technically Dutch Books. And there’s no reason a forward-looking unlosing agent couldn’t break circles at the beginning rather than at the end.
Ok, but it is still an example of the agent choosing a lottery over a strictly better one.
And there’s no reason a forward-looking unlosing agent couldn’t break circles at the beginning rather than at the end.
Then it would be VNM-rational. Completeness is necessary to make sense as an agent, transitivity and independence are necessary to avoid making choices strictly dominated by other options, and the Archimedian axiom really isn’t all that important.
Unnamed’s example is interesting. But if given the choice, unlosing agents would chose option 1 over option 3 (when choosing, unlosing agents act as vNM maximisers).
Unnamed example points at something different, namely that certain ways of resolving intransitives are strictly better than others.
Those aren’t technically Dutch Books. And there’s no reason a forward-looking unlosing agent couldn’t break circles at the beginning rather than at the end.
Ok, but it is still an example of the agent choosing a lottery over a strictly better one.
Then it would be VNM-rational. Completeness is necessary to make sense as an agent, transitivity and independence are necessary to avoid making choices strictly dominated by other options, and the Archimedian axiom really isn’t all that important.
Unnamed’s example is interesting. But if given the choice, unlosing agents would chose option 1 over option 3 (when choosing, unlosing agents act as vNM maximisers).
Unnamed example points at something different, namely that certain ways of resolving intransitives are strictly better than others.