• 検索結果がありません。

Lec1 8 note 最近の更新履歴 yyasuda's website

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

シェア "Lec1 8 note 最近の更新履歴 yyasuda's website"

Copied!
4
0
0

読み込み中.... (全文を見る)

全文

(1)

Choice Function

We consider an agent’s “behavior” as a hypothetical response to the following questionnaire, one for each A ⊆ X:

Q(A) Assume you must choose from a set of alternatives A. Which alternative do you choose?

A choice function C assigns to each set A ⊆ X a unique element of A with the interpretation that C(A) is the chosen element from the set A.

Rm Here are a couple of remarks on choice functions:

1. We assume that the agent selects a unique element in A for every question Q(A).

2. The choice function C does not need to be observable. 3. The agent behaving in accordance with C will choose C(A) if

she has to make a choice from a set A.

1 / 4

(2)

Rational Choice

We (Economics) assume that when the agent has in mind a preference relation % on X, then given any choice problem Q(A) for A ⊆ X, she chooses an element in A which is “% optimal.”

Def An induced choice function C% is the function that assigns every nonempty set A ⊆ X the %-best element of A.

Def A choice function C can be rationalized if there is a preference relation % on X so that C = C%, i.e., C(A) = C%(A) for any A in the domain of C.

Q Under what conditions any choice functions can be presented

“as if” derived from some preference relation?

Def Choice function C satisfies (Sen’s) condition α if for any A⊂ B, C(B) ∈ A implies C(A) = C(B).

2 / 4

(3)

Choice ⇐⇒ Preference in General Decision Problem

Thm Assume C is a choice function with a domain containing at least all subsets of X of size 2 or 3. If C satisfies condition α, then there is a preference relation % on X so that C = C%.

Proof Define % by x % y if x = C({x, y}). Let us first show that

%satisfies completeness and transitivity.

Completeness: Follows from that C = ({x, y}) is well-defined. Transitivity: If x % y and y % z, then by definition of % we have C({x, y}) = x and C({y, z}) = y. If C({x, z}) = z, then, by condition α, C({x, y, z}) 6= x. Similarly, by C({x, y}) = x and condition α, C({x, y, z}) 6= y, and by C({y, z}) = y and condition α, C({x, y, z}) 6= z. A contradiction to C({x, y, z}) ∈ {x, y, z}. Next we show that C(A) = C%(A) for all A ⊆ X. Suppose on contrary C(A) 6= C%(A). That is, C(A) = x and

C%(A) = y(6= x). By definition of % and y % x, this means C({x, y}) = y, contradicting condition α.

3 / 4

(4)

Satisficing Procedure

Q Is there any interesting and general choice procedure that is different from “rational man” yet can be described as if the decision maker maximizes a preference relation?

Def Satisficing (by Herbert Simon)

Let v : X → R be a valuation of the elements in X, and let v ∈ R be a threshold of satisfaction. Let O be an ordering of the alternatives in X.

Given a set A(⊂ X), the decision maker arranges the elements of this set in a list L(A, O) according to the ordering O, then chooses the first element in L(A, O) that has a v-value at least as large as v. If there is no such element in A, she chooses the last element.

Q Is this procedure rationalized by some preference relation?

A Yes, since it satisfies condition α! (verify it by yourself)

→ See the discussion in lecture 3 of Rubinstein.

4 / 4

参照

関連したドキュメント

Merkurjev's theorem [Me1] implies that even- dimensional forms of trivial signed discriminant and Cliord invariant are exactly the forms whose Witt classes lie in I 3 F , the

[5] Shapiro A., On functions representable as a difference of two convex functions in inequality constrained optimization, Research report University of South Africa, 1983. [6] Vesel´

Key words and phrases: Linear system, transfer function, frequency re- sponse, operational calculus, behavior, AR-model, state model, controllabil- ity,

2. The subintervals do not necessarily have equal widths. Let us denote by C the class of all functions λ which are piecewise constant on each subinterval defined above.. This fact

&BSCT. Let C, S and K be the classes of convex, starlike and close-to-convex functions respectively. Its basic properties, its relationship with other subclasses of S,

This paper is concerned with the Levi problem in infinite dimensional projec- tive spaces and with the indicator theorem of entire functions of exponential type in infinite

To be specic, let us henceforth suppose that the quasifuchsian surface S con- tains two boundary components, the case of a single boundary component hav- ing been dealt with in [5]

It is worthwhile to note that the method of B -bounded semigroups does not require X to be a Banach space (in fact X is not required to have any structure but linear) and