Yeah, it seems pretty likely that the definition I gave is wrong. Here’s an alternative:
A totally mixed evidential equilibrium must (a) assign nonzero probability to each outcome and (b) have each player maximize evidential expected utility. An evidential equilibrium is a totally mixed evidential equilibrium or a limit of them.
I’m pretty sure you can still have mutual cooperation on the prisoner’s dilemma, by iteratively changing probabilities assigned to C/C C/D D/C D/D so that players are indifferent between C and D in each totally mixed equilibrium.
EDIT: this one also seems wrong. It might be possible to create something similar to trembling hand perfect equilibria, where we have a sequence of perturbed games with people maximizing evidential utility on each perturbed game.
Yeah, it seems pretty likely that the definition I gave is wrong. Here’s an alternative:
A totally mixed evidential equilibrium must (a) assign nonzero probability to each outcome and (b) have each player maximize evidential expected utility. An evidential equilibrium is a totally mixed evidential equilibrium or a limit of them.
I’m pretty sure you can still have mutual cooperation on the prisoner’s dilemma, by iteratively changing probabilities assigned to C/C C/D D/C D/D so that players are indifferent between C and D in each totally mixed equilibrium.
EDIT: this one also seems wrong. It might be possible to create something similar to trembling hand perfect equilibria, where we have a sequence of perturbed games with people maximizing evidential utility on each perturbed game.