Mind 117 (467):613-632 (2008)
|Abstract||By recourse to the fundamentals of preference orderings and their numerical representations through linear utility, we address certain questions raised in Nover and Hájek 2004, Hájek and Nover 2006, and Colyvan 2006. In brief, the Pasadena and Altadena games are well-defined and can be assigned any finite utility values while remaining consistent with preferences between those games having well-defined finite expected value. This is also true for the St Petersburg game. Furthermore, the dominance claimed for the Altadena game over the Pasadena game, and that would have been claimed for the St Petersburg game over the Altadena, can be contradicted without fear of inconsistency with the axioms of utility theory. However, insistence upon dominance can be made to yield a contradiction of the Archimedean axiom of utility theory. CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this?|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
J. Sprenger & R. Heesen (2011). The Bounded Strength of Weak Expectations. Mind 120 (479):819-832.
Kenny Easwaran (2008). Strong and Weak Expectations. Mind 117 (467):633-641.
Mark Colyvan (2008). Relative Expectation Theory. Journal of Philosophy 105 (1):37-44.
Harris Nover & Alan Hájek (2004). Vexing Expectations. Mind 113 (450):237-249.
Martin Peterson (2011). A New Twist to the St Petersburg Paradox. Journal of Philosophy 108 (12):697-699.
Alan Hájek & Harris Nover (2006). Perplexing Expectations. Mind 115 (459):703 - 720.
Alan Hájek & Harris Nover (2008). Complex Expectations. Mind 117 (467):643 - 664.
J. McKenzie Alexander (2011). Expectations and Choiceworthiness. Mind 120 (479):803-817.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads38 ( #30,893 of 549,088 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,333 of 549,088 )
How can I increase my downloads?