A note about the different characterizations of the expected utility theorem
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24201/ee.v38i1.439Keywords:
expected utility theory, lottery space, axiomatic equivalenceAbstract
In this work, we prove the axiomatic equivalence of several characterizations of the Expected Utility Theorem proposed by Mas-Colell et al. (1995), Jehle and Reny (2011), Maschler et al. (2013), and Rubinstein (2012). A general language is used for unifying the notation, and we introduce a recursive definition of the lottery space in the expected utility theory.
Metrics
References
Barbera, S., P. Hammond, and C. Seidl. 2004. Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Cantala, D. 2007. Preferences for shifts in probabilities and expected utility theory, Estudios Económicos, 22(1): 99-109.
Hara, C., I. Segal, and S. Tadelis. 1997. Solutions Manual for Microeconomic Theory: Mas-Colell, Whinston and Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Jehle, G.A. and P.J. Reny. 2011. Advanced Microeconomic Theory, Third Edition, London, Pearson Education.
Mas-Colell, A., M.D. Whinston, and J.R. Green. 1995. Microeconomic Theory, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Maschler, M., E. Solan, and S. Zamir. 2013. Game Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Rubinstein, A. 2012. Lecture Notes in Microeconomic Theory, Second Edition, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Schmidt, U. 2004. Alternatives to expected utility: Formal theories, in S. Barbera, P. Hammond, and C. Seidl (eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Sudgen, R. 2004. Alternatives to expected utility: Foundations, in S. Barbera, P. Hammond, and C. Seidl (eds.), Handbook of Utility Theory, Vol. 2, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Language
Search
Social Networks
Newsletter
Statistics
View 
Biblat Indicators 
Matomo
