Substitution of indifferent options at choice nodes and admissibility: a reply to Rabinowicz |
| |
Authors: | Seidenfeld Teddy |
| |
Institution: | (1) Department of Philosophy, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Baker Hall 135, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3890, USA |
| |
Abstract: | Tiebreak rules are necessary for revealing indifference in non- sequential decisions. I focus on a preference relation that satisfies Ordering and fails Independence in the following way. Lotteries a and b are indifferent but the compound lottery 0.5f, 0.5b is strictly preferred to the compound lottery 0.5f, 0.5a . Using tiebreak rules the following is shown here: In sequential decisions when backward induction is applied, a preference like the one just described must alter the preference relation between a and b at certain choice nodes, i.e., indifference between a and b is not stable. Using this result, I answer a question posed by Rabinowicz (1997) concerning admissibility in sequential decisions when indifferent options are substituted at choice nodes. |
| |
Keywords: | Sequential decisions Independence postulate Ordering postulate Admissibility Indifference |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|