David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Jeff Paris (2001) proves a generalized Dutch Book theorem. If a belief state is not a generalized probability (a kind of probability appropriate for generalized distributions of truth-values) then one faces ‘sure loss’ books of bets. In Williams (manuscript) I showed that Joyce’s (1998) accuracy-domination theorem applies to the same set of generalized probabilities. What is the relationship between these two results? This note shows that (when ‘accuracy’ is treated via the Brier Score) both results are easy corollaries of the core result that Paris appeals to in proving his dutch book theorem (Minkowski’s separating hyperplane theorem). We see that every point of accuracy-domination defines a dutch book, but we only have a partial converse
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
J. Robert G. Williams (2012). Generalized Probabilism: Dutch Books and Accuracy Domination. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 41 (5):811-840.
Alan Hájek (2008). Arguments for–or Against–Probabilism? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):793 - 819.
Frank Döring (2000). Conditional Probability and Dutch Books. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):391-409.
Robert Titiev (1997). Arbitrage and the Dutch Book Theorem. Journal of Philosophical Research 22:477-482.
Patrick Maher (1997). Depragmatized Dutch Book Arguments. Philosophy of Science 64 (2):291-305.
Teddy Seidenfeld & Mark J. Schervish (1983). A Conflict Between Finite Additivity and Avoiding Dutch Book. Philosophy of Science 50 (3):398-412.
Colin Howson (1992). Dutch Book Arguments and Consistency. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:161 - 168.
Brad Armendt (1980). Is There a Dutch Book Argument for Probability Kinematics? Philosophy of Science 47 (4):583-588.
James M. Joyce (1998). A Nonpragmatic Vindication of Probabilism. Philosophy of Science 65 (4):575-603.
Alan H.´ajek (2008). Arguments for–or Against–Probabilism? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):793 - 819.
Seamus Bradley (2012). Dutch Book Arguments and Imprecise Probabilities. In Dennis Dieks, Stephan Hartmann, Michael Stoeltzner & Marcel Weber (eds.), Probabilities, Laws and Structures. Springer.
Rachael Briggs (2009). Distorted Reflection. Philosophical Review 118 (1):59-85.
Wei Xiong (2011). Implications of the Dutch Book: Following Ramsey's Axioms. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (2):334-344.
C. Waidacher (1997). Hidden Assumptions in the Dutch Book Argument. Theory and Decision 43 (3):293-312.
Richard Pettigrew (2012). Accuracy, Chance, and the Principal Principle. Philosophical Review 121 (2):241-275.
Added to index2010-10-08
Total downloads19 ( #74,831 of 1,088,810 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,666 of 1,088,810 )
How can I increase my downloads?