I think it is wrong true name for this kind of problem, because it is not about probabilistic reasoning per se, it is about combination of logical (which deals with 1 and 0 credences) and probabilistic (which deals with everything else) reasoning. And this problem, as far as I know, was solved by logical induction
Sketch proof: by criterion of logical induction, logical inductor is unexploitable, i.e. it’s losses are bounded. So, even if adversary trader could pull of 5⁄10 trick for one time, it can’t do it forever, because this would mean unbounded losses.
what do you mean?
I mean: “No way that there was a guy in recorded history who chose 5$ instead of 10$ due to faulty embedded agency reasoning, ever”.
I think it is wrong true name for this kind of problem, because it is not about probabilistic reasoning per se, it is about combination of logical (which deals with 1 and 0 credences) and probabilistic (which deals with everything else) reasoning. And this problem, as far as I know, was solved by logical induction
Sketch proof: by criterion of logical induction, logical inductor is unexploitable, i.e. it’s losses are bounded. So, even if adversary trader could pull of 5⁄10 trick for one time, it can’t do it forever, because this would mean unbounded losses.
I mean: “No way that there was a guy in recorded history who chose 5$ instead of 10$ due to faulty embedded agency reasoning, ever”.