I’ve realized that I’m not the target of the post, and am bowing out. I think we’re in agreement as to the way forward (no knowledge is 1 or 0, and practically you can get “certain enough” with a finite number of iterations). We may or may not disagree on what other people think about this topic.
Fair enough. I note for the public record that I’m not agreeing (nor 100% disagreeing) with
practically you can get “certain enough” with a finite number of iterations
as an accurate characterization of something I think. For example, it currently seems to me like finite iterations doesn’t solve two-generals, while p-common knowledge does.
However, the main thrust of the post is more to question the standard picture than to say exactly what the real picture is (since I remain broadly skeptical about it).
I’ve realized that I’m not the target of the post, and am bowing out. I think we’re in agreement as to the way forward (no knowledge is 1 or 0, and practically you can get “certain enough” with a finite number of iterations). We may or may not disagree on what other people think about this topic.
Fair enough. I note for the public record that I’m not agreeing (nor 100% disagreeing) with
as an accurate characterization of something I think. For example, it currently seems to me like finite iterations doesn’t solve two-generals, while p-common knowledge does.
However, the main thrust of the post is more to question the standard picture than to say exactly what the real picture is (since I remain broadly skeptical about it).