You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

army1987 comments on Harsanyi's Social Aggregation Theorem and what it means for CEV - Less Wrong Discussion

21 Post author: AlexMennen 05 January 2013 09:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (86)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: [deleted] 06 January 2013 08:19:15PM *  1 point [-]

Does the theorem say anything about the sign of the c_k? Will they always all be positive? Will they always all be non-negative?

Comment author: AlexMennen 06 January 2013 09:02:48PM 3 points [-]

Under Harsanyi's original axioms, you cannot say anything about the signs of the coefficients. My axioms are slightly stronger, but I think still not quite enough. However, if you make the even stronger (but still reasonable, I think) assumption that the agents' utility functions are linearly independent, then you can prove that all of the coefficients are non-negative. This is because the linear independence allows you create situations where each agent prefers A to B by arbitrarily specifiable relative amounts. As in, for all agents k, we can create choices A and B such that every agent prefers A to B, but the margin by which every agent other than k prefers A to B is arbitrarily small compared to the margin by which k prefers A to B, so since FAI prefers A to B, c_k must be nonnegative.