Conflicting bargaining theories reveal mathematicians lack a common aesthetic for selection

Evidence

In this view, the theory of Nash (leading to the maximum-utility-product solution) is a response to the fact that even in the realm of mathematics there are offhand too many types of uniqueness or symmetry to provide an unambiguous rule for selection, hence a need to adduce plausible criteria (axioms) sufficient to yield an unambiguous selection. Braithwaite’s theory can be characterized the same way. The fact that the two solutions conflict implies that mathematicians may not have a sufficiently common mathematical aesthetic to satisfy the first part of the Harsanyi postulate, that is, to coordinate their expectations on the same outcome. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 861

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the Godfather’s arbitration role: when formal rules underdetermine an outcome, a decisive arbiter supplies the selection function that mathematicians cannot agree on among themselves. — connects to: Mathematical proofs gain beauty through economy and lack of variation — G. H. Hardy, A Mathematician’s Apology, 237; Scholars model state-affect relations several conflicting ways, none dominant

Broader Connections

• Mathematical proofs gain beauty through economy and lack of variation #complicates (0.80) — G. H. Hardy, A Mathematician’s Apology, 237
• Scholars model state-affect relations several conflicting ways, none dominant #corroborates (0.75)