BGonline.org Forums

Balls

Posted By: Tom Keith
Date: Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 1:17 p.m.

In Response To: Balls (Matt Cohn-Geier)

MCG wrote: ... you need at least the following implicit assumptions: Y knows that X can see Y & Z's ball but not his own, is truthful, and reasons perfectly. Z knows all that and also knows the same things about Y.

Aren't those reasonable assumptions? After all,

Ray wrote: Each person reasons perfectly on the basis of the evidence available.

Or are you saying that assumption is not possible logically? (E.g., it leads to a contradiction?)

Messages In This Thread

• Balls
  Ray Kershaw -- Thursday, 10 June 2010, at 8:26 p.m.
  • Balls
    ryc -- Thursday, 10 June 2010, at 8:33 p.m.
  • Balls
    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Thursday, 10 June 2010, at 8:36 p.m.
    • Balls
      Ray Kershaw -- Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 9:02 a.m.
      • Balls
        Matt Cohn-Geier -- Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 11:20 a.m.
        • Balls
          Tom Keith -- Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 1:17 p.m.
          • Balls
            Matt Cohn-Geier -- Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 2:50 p.m.
            • Balls
              Tom Keith -- Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 3:54 p.m.
              • Balls
                Casper van der Tak -- Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 4:17 p.m.
              • Balls
                Bob Koca -- Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 4:25 p.m.
  • Balls RO Warning!!
    Casper van der Tak -- Thursday, 10 June 2010, at 8:38 p.m.
  • Balls
    Alejandro -- Thursday, 10 June 2010, at 9:34 p.m.
  • Balls
    Bob Koca -- Friday, 11 June 2010, at 11:56 p.m.
  • Balls * Spoiler
    Joe Russell -- Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 12:18 a.m.
  • Balls
    garyo -- Saturday, 12 June 2010, at 4:47 p.m.