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.

Vaniver 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. Show more comments above.

Comment author: AlexMennen 06 January 2013 10:00:05PM *  2 points [-]

I should note that I suspect that's a general failure mode: take any utility function, and add an agent to the pool who has that utility function. That agent is now a candidate for the social welfare function, as it now satisfies the first two axioms and might satisfy the third. (Alternatively, appoint any agent already in the pool as the social welfare function; the first two axioms will be satisfied, and the third will be unchanged.)

That is correct. But in a case like that, the aggregate utility function is a linear combination of the original utility functions where all but one of the coefficients are 0. Being a linear combination of utility functions is not a strong enough requirement to rule out all bad aggregations.

Comment author: Vaniver 06 January 2013 10:12:26PM *  1 point [-]

Right, I just noticed that. So T is out as a counterexample, and likewise U is just Charlie's utility. Attempting to build another counterexample.