Experiments have shown that many people prefer (1A) to (1B) and (2B) to (2A)...So independence implies that anyone that prefers (1A) to (1B) must also prefer (2B) to (2A).
Shouldn’t independence have people who prefer (1A) to (1B) prefer (2A) to (2B)?
Experiments have shown that many people prefer (1A) to (1B) and (2B) to (2A)...So independence implies that anyone that prefers (1A) to (1B) must also prefer (2B) to (2A).
Shouldn’t independence have people who prefer (1A) to (1B) prefer (2A) to (2B)?
EDIT:
But because the direct approach is very recent (Peterson 2008; Cozic 2011), and only time will show whether it can stand up to professional criticism.
Either the word “because” or “and” is out of place here.
I only notice these things because this FAQ is great and I’m trying to understand every detail that I can.
Thanks for your post, it was a good summary of decision theory basics. Some corrections:
In the Allais paradox, choice (2A) should be “A 34% chance of 24,000$ and a 66% chance of nothing” (now 27,000$).
A typo in title 10.3.1., the title should probably be “Why should degrees of belief follow the laws of probability?”.
In 11.1.10. Prisoner’s dilemma, the Resnik quotation mentions a twenty-five year term, yet the decision matrix has “20 years in jail” as an outcome.
Also,
Shouldn’t independence have people who prefer (1A) to (1B) prefer (2A) to (2B)?
Thanks. Fixed for the next update of the FAQ.
Also,
Shouldn’t independence have people who prefer (1A) to (1B) prefer (2A) to (2B)?
EDIT:
Either the word “because” or “and” is out of place here.
I only notice these things because this FAQ is great and I’m trying to understand every detail that I can.
Thanks Pinyaka, changed for next edit (and glad to hear you’re finding it useful).
Typo at 11.4: