What are the ramifications of the argument that Info-Gap robustness does not represent likelihood of events?
Answer-75: The argument showing that Info-Gap robustness does not represent likelihood of events brings into full view the fundamental flaw in Info-Gap decision theory: the flaw exposing it for the voodoo decision theory it is. It also brings out the muddled reasoning behind a misinterpretation of Info-Gap robustness that is common in the Info-Gap literature. To explain this point, let us consider the simple case where the complete region of uncertainty is the positive segment of the real line. That is, assume that U=(0,∞). This means that the true value of u, call it u*, is equal to some non-negative number. Since the value of u* is subject to severe uncertainty, all we know is that it is somewhere on U. That is, given that the uncertainty is severe, we have not the slightest inkling whether u* is more or less likely to be for instance in [100,200] rather than in [600,700], or whether it is more or less likely that u* ≤ 200 than u*≥ 200. We simply have no clue. What Info-Gap users/sch
Related Questions
- What exactly is behind Info-Gaps claim that decisions designed solely to optimize performance have no robustness?
- What are the ramifications of the argument that Info-Gap robustness does not represent likelihood of events?
- Is info-Gaps measure of robustness a reinvention of the good old "stability radius"?
