Timeline for Mathematical modeling of voting/rating (e.g. political elections, questions on MO, gadgets on amazon,...)
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21, 2012 at 18:16 | comment | added | Michael Greinecker | I don't see the connection. If the posteriors are commonly known, they have to agree. But why should voting lead to commonly known posteriors? | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 17:20 | history | edited | Tony Huynh | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed spelling
|
| Mar 21, 2012 at 14:08 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | Great, thanks! I'll take a look at it. | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 14:01 | comment | added | Steven Landsburg | If you start with the Hanson/Cowen paper and follow up the references in its bibliography, you should be pretty much up to the state of the art. | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 13:32 | comment | added | Henry Cohn | Aumann's theorem is beautiful and important, but it makes some very strong assumptions about ideal Bayesians and common knowledge, and my gut feeling is that they severely limit its applicability (so it should be viewed more as a disproof of these hypotheses). But I haven't read Hanson's papers and would love to understand this better. Where would you recommend starting? His paper "Are disagreements honest?" with Cowen looks appealing, but partly I chose it because it looks particularly readable, and I don't know how it fits in the big picture. | |
| Mar 21, 2012 at 12:37 | history | answered | Steven Landsburg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |