Theory and Decision

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 79–96 | Cite as

DeFinettian Consensus

  • L.G. Esteves
  • S. Wechsler
  • J.G. Leite
  • V.A. González-López
Article

Abstract

It is always possible to construct a real function φ, given random quantities X and Y with continuous distribution functions F and G, respectively, in such a way that φ(X) and φ(Y), also random quantities, have both the same distribution function, say H. This result of De Finetti introduces an alternative way to somehow describe the `opinion' of a group of experts about a continuous random quantity by the construction of Fields of coincidence of opinions (FCO). A Field of coincidence of opinions is a finite union of intervals where the opinions of the experts coincide with respect to that quantity of interest. We speculate on (dis)advantages of Fields of Opinion compared to usual `probability' measures of a group and on their relation with a continuous version of the well-known Allais' paradox.

Field of coincidence of opinions Allais' paradox 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Allais, M. & Hagen, O. (1979), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais' Paradox. (D. Reidel Publishing Company).Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K.J. (1951), Social Choice and Individual Values, Second Edition, (Yale University Press).Google Scholar
  3. Barlow, R.E. (1992), Introduction to De Finetti (1937) Foresight: Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources, in S. Kotz and N.L. Johnson (eds.), Breakthroughs in Statistics, Volume I (Springer Verlag).Google Scholar
  4. Cifarelli, D.M. & Regazzini, E. (1996), De Finetti's contribution to probability and statistics, Statistical Science 11(4): 253–282.Google Scholar
  5. Dawid A. P. (1982), Intersubjective statistical models, in G. Koch and F. Spizzichino (eds.), Exchangeability in Probability and Statistics (North-Holland, Amsterdam).Google Scholar
  6. de Finetti, B. (1953), Trasformazioni di Numeri Aleatori atte a far coincidere distribuzioni diverse, Giornale Dell'Istituto Italiano Degli Attuari, XVI, pp. 51–57.Google Scholar
  7. Esteves, L.G. (1997), Coincidence of Distributions by a Transformation of de Finetti, Dissertation. Universidade de S. Paulo, Department of Statistics (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  8. Genest, C. & Zidek, J.V. (1986), Combining Probability Distributions: a critique and an annotated bibliography, Statistical Science 1(1): 114–148.Google Scholar
  9. Nau, R.F. (1992), Joint coherence in games of incomplete information, Management Science 38(3): 374–387.Google Scholar
  10. Nau, R.F. (1995), The incoherence of agreeing to disagree, Theory and Decision 39: 219–239.Google Scholar
  11. Savage, L.J. (1954), The Foundations of Statistics, Second Edition (Dover Publications).Google Scholar
  12. Wechsler, S. (1993), Exchangeability and Predictivism, Erkenntnis 38(3): 343–350.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • L.G. Esteves
    • 1
  • S. Wechsler
    • 1
  • J.G. Leite
    • 1
  • V.A. González-López
    • 1
  1. 1.Universidade De São PauloS. Paulo, SPBrazil

Personalised recommendations