Arbitrage and global cones: Another counterexample |
| |
Authors: | Paulo K. Monteiro Frank H. Page Jr. Myrna H. Wooders |
| |
Affiliation: | (1) CORE, 34 voie du Roman Pays, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (e-mail: pklm@impa.br), BE;(2) Department of Finance, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA (e-mail: fpage@cba.ua.edu), US;(3) Department of Economics, University of Toronto, 150 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 (e-mail: mwooders@chass.utoronto.ca), CA |
| |
Abstract: | Chichilnisky (1997) claims that another variant of her condition limiting arbitrage is necessary and sufficient for existence of equilibrium and nonemptiness of the core in an economy with short sales allowing half lines in indifference surfaces. Her proof, however, is based on a proposition purporting to relate her notion of “global cone” (see Chichilnisky (1997) for references) to the Page-Wooders “increasing cone.” In this paper, we present a counterexample showing that parts (i) and (ii) of Chichilnisky's proposition are false. Thus, Chichilnisky's claimed result is without proof. Received: 18 August 1997/Accepted: 30 January 1998 |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|