SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies / 2021 / Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 2

Another Characterization of Expected Scott-Suppes Utility Representation

Beklenen Scott-Suppes Fayda Gösteriminin Başka Bir Karakterizasyonu

Nuh Aygün Dalkıran
Furkan Yıldız
Pages
177–193
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In this paper, we identify the axioms required on top of those of Candeal and Indurain (2010) in order to obtain a linear Scott- Suppes utility representation, i.e., another characterization of ESSUR.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This paper provides a new characterization of Expected Scott-Suppes Utility Representation (ESSUR).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Dalkıran, Dokumacı, and Kara (2018) were the first to provide an axiomatic characterization of ESSUR.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In this paper, we identify the axioms required on top of those of Candeal and Indurain (2010) in order to obtain a linear Scott- Suppes utility representation, i.e., another characterization of ESSUR.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This paper provides a new characterization of Expected Scott-Suppes Utility Representation (ESSUR). ESSUR combines the Expected Utility Representation with the Scott-Suppes Utility Representation (ESSUR). The latter represents semiorders that formalize preferences with intransitive indifferences. Dalkıran, Dokumacı, and Kara (2018) were the first to provide an axiomatic characterization of ESSUR. Surprisingly, their characterization does not involve any separability axiom, which is essential for numerical representations of preferences on uncountable sets. Candeal and Indurain (2010) were the first to provide a characterization of SSUR on uncountably infinite sets employing a semiorder separability axiom. In this paper, we identify the axioms required on top of those of Candeal and Indurain (2010) in order to obtain a linear Scott- Suppes utility representation, i.e., another characterization of ESSUR.

Özet

Bu makalede geçişken olmayan kayıtsızlıklara sahip tercihler fikrini bünyesinde barındıran yarı- sıralamalar yapısı altında Scott-Suppes fayda gösterimi ile Beklenen Fayda Gösterimi'ni ilişkilendiren Beklenen Scott-Suppes Fayda Gösterimi'nin yeni bir karakterizasyonu verilmektedir. Beklenen Scott-Suppes Fayda Gösterimi'nin ilk karakterizasyonu Dalkıran, Dokumacı ve Kara (2018) tarafından yapılmıştır. Dalkıran, Dokumacı ve Kara (2018)’nın karakterizasyonu yarı- sıralamalar için herhangi bir ayrılabilirlik aksiyomu kullanmamaktadır. Halbuki ayrılabilirlik aksiyomları sayılamaz sonsuzluktaki kümeler üzerindeki fayda gösterimlerinin temelinde yer almaktadırlar. Sayılamaz sonsuzluktaki kümeler üzerinde yarı-sıralamalar için bir ayrılabilirlik aksiyomu kullanarak Scott-Suppes Fayda Gösterimi karakterizasyonunu elde eden ilk çalışma Candeal ve Indurain (2010)’dır. Bulduğumuz karakterizasyon Candeal ve Indurain (2010)'un karakterizasyonunu temel olarak alıp hangi aksiyomlar ilave edildiğinde bir Beklenen Scott-Suppes fayda gösterimi elde edilebilir sorusunu cevaplamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Dalkıran, N. A., Yıldız, F. (2022). Another Characterization of Expected Scott-Suppes Utility Representation. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Cilt: 35 - Sayı: 2, 177–193. https://ajindex.com/articles/467318

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Aleskerov, F., Bouyssou, D., & Monjardet, B. (2007). Utility maximization, choice and preference (Vol. 16). Springer Science & Business Media. Beja, A., & Gilboa, I. (1992). Numerical representations of imperfectly ordered preferences (a unified geometric exposition). Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 36(3), 426–449.
  2. Bridges, D. S. (1983). A numerical representation of preferences with intransitive indifference. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 11(1), 25–42.
  3. Candeal, J. C., Estevan, A., Garcia, J. G., & Indura ́in, E. (2012). Semiorders with separability properties. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56(6), 444–451.
  4. Candeal, J. C., & Indur ́ain, E. (2010). Semiorders and thresholds of utility discrimination: Solving the scott–suppes representability problem. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54(6), 485–490.
  5. Chateauneuf, A. (1987). Continuous representation of a preference relation on a connected topological space. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 16(2), 139–146.
  6. Dalkıran, N. A., Dokumacı, O. E., & Kara, T. (2018). Expected scott–suppes utility representation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 86, 30–40.
  7. Fishburn, P. C. (1968). Semiorders and risky choices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 5(2), 358–361.
  8. Fishburn, P. C. (1985). Interval orders and interval graphs: A study of partially ordered sets. Wiley-Interscience. Fishburn, P. C. (1991). Nontransitive preferences in decision theory. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 4(2), 113–134.
  9. Gensemer, S. H. (1987). Continuous semiorder representations. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 16(3), 275–289.
  10. Gilboa, I., & Lapson, R. (1995). Aggregation of semiorders: Intransitive indifference makes a difference. Economic Theory, 5(1), 109–126.
  11. Herstein, I. N., & Milnor, J. (1953). An axiomatic approach to measurable utility. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 21, 291–297.
  12. Inoue, T. (2010). A utility representation theorem with weaker continuity condition. Journal of Mathematical Economics, 46(1), 122–127.
  13. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979).
  14. Prospect theory. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–292.
  15. Kreps, D. (1988). Notes on the theory of choice. Westview Press.
  16. Luce, R. D. (1956). Semiorders and a theory of utility discrimination. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society, 24, 178–191.
  17. Nakamura, Y. (1988). Expected utility with an interval ordered structure. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 32(3), 298–312.
  18. Ok, E. A. (2007). Real analysis with economic applicati