Thank you. I have not seen that theorem, and this is very helpful and interesting. It is incredibly similar to what I was doing. I strongly encourage anyone reading this to vote up pragmatist’s comment.
Piccione’s paper, mentioned in Wei’s post on AMD, says:
Savage’s theory views a state as a description of a scenario which is independent of the act. In contrast, “being at the second intersection” is a state which is not independent from the action taken at the first, and, consequently, at the second intersection.
Thank you. I have not seen that theorem, and this is very helpful and interesting. It is incredibly similar to what I was doing. I strongly encourage anyone reading this to vote up pragmatist’s comment.
I think most LWers working on these topics are already aware of Savage’s approach. It doesn’t work on AMD-like problems.
Are there any posts describing what goes wrong?
Piccione’s paper, mentioned in Wei’s post on AMD, says: