  What does it mean for multiple agents' credence functions to be consistent
with each other, if the agents have distinct but overlapping sets of evidence?
Mathematical philosopher Michael Titelbaum's rule, called Generalized
Conditionalization (GC), sensibly requires each pair of agents to acquire
identical credences if they updated on each other's evidence. However, GC
allows for paradoxical arrangements of agent credences that we would not like
to call consistent. We interpret GC as a gluing condition in the context of
sheaf theory, and show that if we further assume that the agents' evidence is
logically consistent then the sheaf condition is satisfied and the paradoxes
are resolved.
