Yet another game theory puzzle, one that is always fun to come across, especially on Terence Tao’s blog. In the version I know the islanders are less devoted to their religion and more jealous of their wives, but the point is the same. Does it make any difference when a fact that everybody already knows is publicly announced ?
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Anonymous on Medawar’s Test
- rvohra on CS Referencing Conventions
- tas on CS Referencing Conventions
- Anonymous on CS Referencing Conventions
- Anonymous on CS Referencing Conventions
Academic Politics
advertising
alfred tarski
apple
Ariel Rubinstein
auctions
aumann
axiom of choice
bayesian
bayesianism
behavioral economics
Blackwell
bloggingheads
chairing
common knowledge
computability
Dawkins
dynamic programming
economics
Elsevier
ergodic
erice
experiments
expert testing
falsifiability
fixed point
game theory
global warming
healthcare
infinite games
intermediate microeconomics
ipad
israel
krugman
large games
latex
learning
macfreedom
matching
measurability
merging
michael rabin
mixed strategies
modeling
morgenstern
multiple selves
Nash equilibrium
normal form
notworking
open problems
pararallel sessions
pdf
peer review
pricing
prisoner's dilemma
projective determinacy
purification
puzzles
quantum games;
Samuelson; martingales; probability
shapley-folkman
Simpsons did it
springer
Springer-Verlag
stability
statistics
strategy
teaching
the greatest show on earth
Trump
uncertainty
von Neumann
zeno
zermelo
zero-sum games
Blogroll
Archives
- July 2017
- June 2017
- September 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
3 comments
April 17, 2011 at 8:40 am
Joseph
I dont see how and I’ve yet to see a comment, and i have read HUNDREDS of them on both Terry’s blog and on XKCD and in forums, that explains it in a way that doesn’t seem very hand-wavy to me, I have also read the Wikepedia article and it gives no sources, except on “structurally equivalent” version from some behavioural economists 2000 paper, are you aware of any text, monograph, textbook or other source where any attempt is made to explain this puzzle in a comprehensive way that makes allowances for a skeptical student?… I am beginning to think the whole thing is a hoax.
April 18, 2011 at 2:47 am
chris
Joseph, just start out from n=1: What would happen if there was but 1 blue-eyed native on the island? What would happen if there were two? …
April 18, 2011 at 11:35 pm
Eran
I actually don’t know of any game theory text that analyzes this puzzle formally, which is a bit strange since this is the most beatiful demonstration I know for common knowledge. I think the reason is that game theorists are used to represent knowledge as a partition of a state space, and in this puzzle, the state space will be too large to work with.