- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Wei Dai <weidai.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:34:34 -0700

*> > http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/quant-ph/9906015
*

I just read this paper and it seems to have a pretty big problem. On page 5

it says:

"For convenience, let us consider games in which the measured value of X^

is numerically equal to the utility of the payoff, measured on some

suitable utility scale. And let us consider only players for whom the

utilities of the possible payoffs can be assigned so as to have an

additivity property, namely that the player is indifferent between

receiving two separate payoffs with utilities x1 and x2, and receiving a

single payoff with utility x1+x2."

It's not completely clear to me whether the second assumption (additivity)

is also "for convenience". The conclusion of the paper seems to depend on

this assumption and I could not see how to generalize the argument to

remove the dependency. If it really is a fundamental assumption for the

paper, then the conclusion would seem to apply only to hypothetical people

whose utilities just happen to satisfy the addititivity property.

BTW it's easy to see why these people don't exist. Additivity implies that

you either prefer two left shoes to a matched pair, or you prefer two right

shoes to a matched pair, or you are indifferent between all three choices.

Received on Mon Jun 07 1999 - 18:35:52 PDT

Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 18:34:34 -0700

I just read this paper and it seems to have a pretty big problem. On page 5

it says:

"For convenience, let us consider games in which the measured value of X^

is numerically equal to the utility of the payoff, measured on some

suitable utility scale. And let us consider only players for whom the

utilities of the possible payoffs can be assigned so as to have an

additivity property, namely that the player is indifferent between

receiving two separate payoffs with utilities x1 and x2, and receiving a

single payoff with utility x1+x2."

It's not completely clear to me whether the second assumption (additivity)

is also "for convenience". The conclusion of the paper seems to depend on

this assumption and I could not see how to generalize the argument to

remove the dependency. If it really is a fundamental assumption for the

paper, then the conclusion would seem to apply only to hypothetical people

whose utilities just happen to satisfy the addititivity property.

BTW it's easy to see why these people don't exist. Additivity implies that

you either prefer two left shoes to a matched pair, or you prefer two right

shoes to a matched pair, or you are indifferent between all three choices.

Received on Mon Jun 07 1999 - 18:35:52 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:06 PST
*