My quick take after skimming: I am quite confused about this post. Of course the VNM theorem IS a coherence theorem. How… could it not be a coherence theorem?
It tells you that actors following four intuitive properties can be represented as utility maximisers. We can quibble about the properties, but the result sounds important regardless for understanding agency!
The same reasoning could be applied to argue that Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem is Not Really About Voting. After all, we are just introducing all these assumptions about what good voting looks like!
I would have hoped you reached the second sentence before skimming! I define what I mean (and what I take previous authors to mean) by ‘coherence theorems’ there.
I think your title might be causing some unnecessary consternation. “You don’t need to maximise utility to avoid domination” or something like that might have avoided a bit of confusion.
My quick take after skimming: I am quite confused about this post.
Of course the VNM theorem IS a coherence theorem.
How… could it not be a coherence theorem?
It tells you that actors following four intuitive properties can be represented as utility maximisers. We can quibble about the properties, but the result sounds important regardless for understanding agency!
The same reasoning could be applied to argue that Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem is Not Really About Voting. After all, we are just introducing all these assumptions about what good voting looks like!
I would have hoped you reached the second sentence before skimming! I define what I mean (and what I take previous authors to mean) by ‘coherence theorems’ there.
I think your title might be causing some unnecessary consternation. “You don’t need to maximise utility to avoid domination” or something like that might have avoided a bit of confusion.
Don’t get me wrong, I just think this is an extremely uncharitable and confusing way of presenting your work.
I think it’s otherwise a great collection of coherence theorems and the discussion about completeness seems alright, though I haven’t read closely.
Using ‘coherence theorems’ with a meaning that is as standard as any, and explaining that meaning within two sentences, seems fine to me.