Jonathan Weiss wrote:
> Your formulation presented a very convincing-looking but paradoxical
> situation, and it took some thinking before I realized exactly where the
> "swindle" was.
I was trying to understand Judea's example. The only way I could
understand it was to think of what protocol the principal of the school
was following (the principal corresponds to the agent B in my account).
What did the principle actually do to deserve being shot (and what
information was available to him when he decided)?
It's not clear that Judea's example doesn't follows the same fate as my
semantics. In order to satisfy the constraints, the principal must give
Judea class R with probability Pr(R). The principal doesn't have the
choice to only assign Judea the class R with chance Bel(R). I don't
think Judea should shoot him. (No wonder everyone is complaining about
violence on the Internet ;^)
Oh well, it seemed like a plausible account when I wrote it yesterday.
[I still like the ingenious set of examples that Philippe Smets gave in
the paper "About Updating" from UAI-91. It is well worth reading, and
motivates many different updating semantics.]
David
--
David Poole, Office: +1 (604) 822-6254
Department of Computer Science, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
University of British Columbia, http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/poole
