Skip to main content

Agreeing to Disagree: Harsanyi and Aumann

  • Chapter
  • 1147 Accesses

Part of the book series: Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook [1997] ((VCIY,volume 5))

Abstract

In “Agreeing to Disagree” [1], Robert Aumann proves that a group of agents who once agreed about the probability of some proposition for which their current probabilities are common knowledge must still agree, even if those probabilities reflect disparate observations. Perhaps one saw that a card was red and another saw that it was a heart, so that as far as that goes, their common prior probability of 1/52 for its being the Queen of hearts would change in the one case to 1/26, and in the other to 1/13. But if those are indeed their current probabilities, it cannot be the case that both know them, and both know that both know them, etc., etc.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. R.J. Aumann, “Agreeing to Disagree”, in: Annals of Statistics,4, 1976, pp.1236–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. R. Carnap, Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1950 (2nd ed. 1962 ).

    Google Scholar 

  3. J.D. Geanakoplos and H.M. Polemarchakis, “We Can’t Disagree Forever”, in: Journal of Economic Theory, 28, 1982, pp. 192–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. M. Goldstein, “The Prevision of Prevision”, in: Journal of the American Statistical Association,78, 1983, pp.817–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. J. Harsanyi, “Games of Incomplete Information Played by Bayesian Players”, Parts I-1H, in: Management Science, 14, 1967–1968, pp.159–182, 320–334, 486–502.

    Google Scholar 

  6. M. Hild, R. Jeffrey and M. Risse, “Aumann’s `No Agreement’ Theorem Generalized”, in: C. Bicchieri, R. Jeffrey, and B. Skyrms, (eds.), The Logic of Strategy. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  7. D. Lewis, Convention, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1969.

    Google Scholar 

  8. O. Neurath, “Protokollsätze”, in: Erkenntnis,3, 1932, pp. 204–214. Translated in his Philosophical Papers 1913–1946,Dordrecht: Reidel 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  9. M. Osborne and A. Rubinstein, A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press 1994.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1998 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hild, M., Jeffrey, R., Risse, M. (1998). Agreeing to Disagree: Harsanyi and Aumann. In: Leinfellner, W., Köhler, E. (eds) Game Theory, Experience, Rationality. Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook [1997], vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1654-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1654-3_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4992-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1654-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics