The theorem doesn’t bother with such distracting side-shows as dishonest communicatio. The paper starts with the much more straightforward statement: If two people have the same priors, and their posteriors for a given event A are common knowledge, then these posteriors must be equal. Obviously, if one of them is successfully deceiving the other, the second hypothesis is false.
The theorem doesn’t bother with such distracting side-shows as dishonest communicatio. The paper starts with the much more straightforward statement: If two people have the same priors, and their posteriors for a given event A are common knowledge, then these posteriors must be equal. Obviously, if one of them is successfully deceiving the other, the second hypothesis is false.