Ian Televan

I don't quite follow why 5/10 example presents a problem.

Conditionals with false antecedents seem nonsensical from the perspective of natural language, but why is this a problem for the formal agent? Since the algorithm as presented doesn't actually try to maximize utility, everything seems to be alright. In particular, there are 4 valid assignments: $p_1:(x=0,y=10,A()=10,U()=10)$, $p_2:(x=5,y=0,A()=5,U()=5)$, $p_3:(x=5,y=10,A()=10,U()=10)$, $p_4:(x=10,y=10,A()=10,U()=10)$

The algorithm doesn't try to select an assignment with largest $U\left(\right)$, but rather just outputs $5$ if there's a valid assignment with $x>y$, and $10$ otherwise. Only $p_2$ fulfills the condition, so it outputs $5$. $p_1$ and $p_4$ also seem nonsensical because of false antecedents but with attached utility $U\left(\right)=10$ - would that be a problem too? 

For this particular problem, you could get rid of assignments with nonsensical values by also considering an algorithm with reversed outputs and then taking the intersection of valid assignments, since only $(x=5,y=10)$ satisfies both algorithms.