Static Decision Theory Under Certainty

Similar documents
Axiomatic Decision Theory

Preference, Choice and Utility

Advanced Microeconomics Note 1: Preference and choice

Individual decision-making under certainty

Revealed Preferences and Utility Functions

Student s Guide Chapter 1: Choice, Preference, and Utility

QUASI-PREFERENCE: CHOICE ON PARTIALLY ORDERED SETS. Contents

Chapter 1 - Preference and choice

Choice Under Certainty

Solution Homework 1 - EconS 501

Non-deteriorating Choice Without Full Transitivity

This corresponds to a within-subject experiment: see same subject make choices from different menus.

Solution Homework 1 - EconS 501

Representation Theorems

Choice, Preference, and Utility

Revealed Preference 2011

Microeconomics. Joana Pais. Fall Joana Pais

MATH 215 Final. M4. For all a, b in Z, a b = b a.

Revealed Reversals of Preferences

Complete Induction and the Well- Ordering Principle

Solutions to Homework Set 1

Relations. Relations. Definition. Let A and B be sets.

MATH 3300 Test 1. Name: Student Id:

Recitation 7: Uncertainty. Xincheng Qiu

CONSUMER DEMAND. Consumer Demand

Exercise 1.2. Suppose R, Q are two binary relations on X. Prove that, given our notation, the following are equivalent:

Structural Properties of Utility Functions Walrasian Demand

Discrete Mathematics for CS Fall 2003 Wagner Lecture 3. Strong induction

Expected Utility Framework

Arrow s Impossibility Theorem and Experimental Tests of Preference Aggregation

Choice, Consideration Sets and Attribute Filters

Preferences and Utility

Handout 2 (Correction of Handout 1 plus continued discussion/hw) Comments and Homework in Chapter 1

Homework #2 Solutions

5.5 Deeper Properties of Continuous Functions

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 6.042J/18.062J, Fall 02: Mathematics for Computer Science Professor Albert Meyer and Dr.

Discrete Mathematics. Spring 2017

Introductory Econometrics

Computability Crib Sheet

1 Some loose ends from last time

THE SURE-THING PRINCIPLE AND P2

Coalitionally strategyproof functions depend only on the most-preferred alternatives.

Choice with Menu-Dependent Rankings (Presentation Slides)

Rationalization of Collective Choice Functions by Games with Perfect Information. Yongsheng Xu

THE SURE-THING PRINCIPLE AND P2

Now, with all the definitions we ve made, we re ready see where all the math stuff we took for granted, like numbers, come from.

A Logician s Toolbox

Tutorial 6. By:Aashmeet Kalra

Engineering Decisions

Regular Choice and the Weak Axiom of Stochastic Revealed Preference

Linear Programming. Larry Blume Cornell University, IHS Vienna and SFI. Summer 2016

22m:033 Notes: 6.1 Inner Product, Length and Orthogonality

1 Initial Notation and Definitions

In N we can do addition, but in order to do subtraction we need to extend N to the integers

The Revealed Preference Implications of Reference Dependent Preferences

Psychophysical Foundations of the Cobb-Douglas Utility Function

1 The Real Number System

Well-Ordering Principle. Axiom: Every nonempty subset of Z + has a least element. That is, if S Z + and S, then S has a smallest element.

Decisions with multiple attributes

13 Social choice B = 2 X X. is the collection of all binary relations on X. R = { X X : is complete and transitive}

WORKSHEET ON NUMBERS, MATH 215 FALL. We start our study of numbers with the integers: N = {1, 2, 3,...}

A metric space is a set S with a given distance (or metric) function d(x, y) which satisfies the conditions

Math 104: Homework 1 solutions

Technical Results on Regular Preferences and Demand

Introductory notes on stochastic rationality. 1 Stochastic choice and stochastic rationality

ABOUT THE CLASS AND NOTES ON SET THEORY

Conjoint measurement

Definitions: A binary relation R on a set X is (a) reflexive if x X : xrx; (f) asymmetric if x, x X : [x Rx xr c x ]

Reverse Bayesianism: A Generalization

The Polyhedron of all Representations of a Semiorder

Relations, Functions, Binary Relations (Chapter 1, Sections 1.2, 1.3)

Professor: Alan G. Isaac These notes are very rough. Suggestions welcome. Samuelson (1938, p.71) introduced revealed preference theory hoping

Adding Some. Larry Moss. Nordic Logic School August 7-11, Indiana University 1/37

ECON 4117/5111 Mathematical Economics

Preference for Commitment

Preference and Utility

THREE BRIEF PROOFS OF ARROW S IMPOSSIBILITY THEOREM JOHN GEANAKOPLOS COWLES FOUNDATION PAPER NO. 1116

We want to show P (n) is true for all integers

Applied Logic. Lecture 1 - Propositional logic. Marcin Szczuka. Institute of Informatics, The University of Warsaw

VC Dimension Review. The purpose of this document is to review VC dimension and PAC learning for infinite hypothesis spaces.

arxiv: v1 [cs.gt] 2 Jan 2012

Thus f is continuous at x 0. Matthew Straughn Math 402 Homework 6

5 Set Operations, Functions, and Counting

WORKSHEET MATH 215, FALL 15, WHYTE. We begin our course with the natural numbers:

arxiv:math/ v1 [math.gm] 21 Jan 2005

Choice, Preferences and Utility

CS 151 Complexity Theory Spring Solution Set 5

UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM. Discussion Papers in Economics CONSISTENT FIRM CHOICE AND THE THEORY OF SUPPLY

Linear Algebra problems

DR.RUPNATHJI( DR.RUPAK NATH )

Dominance and Admissibility without Priors

Uniqueness, Stability, and Gross Substitutes

Homework #6 (10/18/2017)

Supremum and Infimum

A Note on Incompleteness, Transitivity and Suzumura Consistency

6.2 Deeper Properties of Continuous Functions

Proving simple set properties...

Lecture 6 April

2.2 Some Consequences of the Completeness Axiom

Mathematical Induction Again

Transcription:

Static Decision Theory Under Certainty Larry Blume September 22, 2010

1 basics A set of objects X An individual is asked to express preferences among the objects, or to make choices from subsets of X. For x, y X we can ask which, if either, is strictly preferred, that is, the best of the two. If the subject says, I prefer x to y, then we write x y and say, x is strictly preferred to y. The relation is a binary relation. Example 1: X = {a, b, c}, b a, a c, and b c. What if the subject also says a b?

2 axioms Axioms properties that (arguably) all preference orders should satisfy. Asymmetry: For all x, y X, if x y then y x. Negative Transitivity: For all x, y, z X, if x y and y z then x z. Proposition: The binary relation is negatively transitive iff x z implies that for all y, y z or x y.

3 axioms Example 2: X = {a, b, c}, b a, a c and b? c. Asymmetry and NT you also know how b and c must be ranked. Definition: A binary relation is called a (strict) preference relation if it is asymmetric and negatively transitive. Is asymmetry a good normative or descriptive property? What about negative transitivity.

4 weak preference Definition: For x, y X, x y iff y x; x y iff y x and x y. Does the absence of strict preference in either direction require real indifference or could it permit non-comparability? Example: X = {a, b, c}. Suppose a is not ranked (by ) relative to either b or c. If satisfies NT, then b and c are not ranked either.

5 weak preference Definition: The binary relation on X is complete if for all x, y X, x y or y x. is transitive iff for all x, y, z X, x y and y z implies x z. Proposition: Let be a binary relation on X. is asymmetric iff is complete. is negatively transitive iff is transitive.

6 weak preference Proof: = Asymmetry implies that for no pair x, y X is it true that both x y and y x. Thus at least one of x y and y x must hold. So at least one of x y and y x is true. That is, is complete. If x y and y z, then x z. By definition we have y x and z y implies z x, so is transitive. = will be on homework 1.

7 transitivity Proposition: If is a preference relation, then is transitive. Is transitive a useful property? Normative property? The coffee cup example. Without transitivity, there may be no preference maximal object in a set of alternatives.

8 choice Suppose that X is finite. Let P + (X) denote the set of all non-empty subsets of X. Definition: A choice function is a function c : P + (X) P + (X) such that for all A P + (X), c(a) A. c(a) is the set of objects chosen from A. Preference relations define choice functions. Definition: For a preference relation on X, its choice function c : P + (X) P + (X) is c (A) = {x A : for all y A, y x}.

9 choice Things to think about: Show that if x, y c (A), then x y. Show that for all A P + (X), c (A) =. The second item justifies the use of the phrase choice function to describe c.

10 choice For every choice function c is there a preference order such that c = c? Clearly not: Example: X = {a, b, c}. c({a, b, c}) = {a} and c({a, b}) = {b} violates asymmetry. c({a, b}) = {a} and c({b, c}) = {b} and c({a, c} = {c} violates negative transitivity.

11 choice axioms A B x Axiom α: If x B A and x C(A), then x C(B). Proposition: If is a preference relation, then c satisfies axiom α. Proof: Suppose there are sets A, B P + (X) satisfying the hypotheses, that x c (A) and x / c (B), Then there is a y B such that y x. Since B A, y A and so x / c (A), contrary to our hypothesis.

12 choice axioms B A y x Axiom β: If x, y c(a), A B and y c(b), then x c(b). Proposition: If is a preference relation, then c satisfies axiom β. Proof: Since c (A) and y A, y x. Since y c (B), for all z B, z y. Negative transitivity implies that for all z B, z x. Thus x c (B).

13 choice axioms Axioms α and β characterize preference-based choice. Proposition: If a choice function c satisfies axioms α and β, then there is a preference relation such that c = c. Proof: Two steps Define a revealed preference order and show that it is a preference relation, i.e. asymmetric and negatively transitive. Show that c = c.

14 proof Define a preference order: x y iff x = y and c({x, y}) = {x}. Notice that, by definition, x x. is asymmetric. Suppose not. Suppose x y and y x. Then c({x, y}) = {x} and c({x, y}) = {y}. But both cannot be true. is negatively transitive. Suppose that for some x, y, z X, z y and y x. Show that z x. That is, show that x c({x, z}). It suffices to show x c({x, y, z}), because then x c({x, z}) follows from α. Suppose that x / c({x, y, z}). Then one or both of y and z are in c({x, y, z}) because c({x, y, z}) =. We will show that neither of them can be in.

15 proof y / c({x, y, z}). Suppose y c({x, y, z}). Axiom α implies y c({x, y}). Since y x, x c({x, y}). Axiom β implies x c({x, y, z}). z / c({x, y, z}). Suppose z c({x, y, z}). Axiom α implies z c({y, z}). z y implies y c({y, z}). Axiom β implies y c({x, y, z}).

16 proof Revealed preferred to is a preference relation. Now we have to show that for all A P + (A), c(a) = c (A). Suppose x c(a). α implies x c({x, y}) for all y A. By definition, for all y A, y x. Thus x c (A). Suppose c (A). Then for all y A, y x, and so x c({x, y}). Choose z C(A). If z = x, axiom α implies z c({x, z}), so c({x, z}) = {x, z}. Axiom β now implies x C(A). QED

17 WARP An alternative characterization of preference-based choice functions: Weak Axiom of Revealed Preference: If x, y A B and x c(a) and y c(b), then x c(b) and y c(a). This axiom is called Houthakker s Axiom, or WARP. Proposition: c satisfies axioms α and β iff it satisfies WARP. Proof:?

18 Partial Orders We have already dissed completeness of. Definition: is a partial order iff it is asymmetric and transitive. Problem: Characterize c for partial orders. Axiom α still holds, but β may fail. See homework 1. Now we do not want to define indifference as before, since the usual definition expresses both indifference and non-comparability. One could define the pair (, ) and theorize about the pair.