Appendix to: A fungibility theorem
Suppose that is a set and we have functions
. Recall that for
, we say that
is a Pareto improvement over
if for all
, we have
. And we say that it is a strong Pareto improvement if in addition there is some
for which
. We call
a Pareto optimum if there is no strong Pareto improvement over it.
Theorem. Let be a set and suppose
for
are functions satisfying the following property: For any
and any
, there exists an
such that for all
, we have
.
Then if an element of
is a Pareto optimum, then there exist nonnegative constants
such that the function
achieves a maximum at
.
Proof. Let . By hypothesis, the image
is convex.
For , let the Pareto volume of
be the set
This is a closed convex set. Note that is a Pareto optimum precisely when
. Let's assume that this is the case; we just have to prove that
maximizes
for some choice of
.
It suffices to find a hyperplane that contains
and that supports
. Then the desired function
can be constructed by ensuring that
is a level set.
If lies in a proper affine subspace of
, let
be the smallest such subspace. Let
be the interior of
in
and let
be the interior of
. The case where
is a point is trivial; suppose it's not, so
is nonempty. By convexity,
is the closure of
and
is the closure of
.
Since is convex,
is convex, and we can exhaust
with a nested sequence of nonempty compact convex sets
. And
is convex, so we can exhaust
with a nested sequence of nonempty compact convex sets
. By the hyperplane separation theorem, for each
, there is a hyperplane
separating
and
. I claim that
has a convergent subsequence. Indeed, each
must intersect the convex hull of
, and the space of hyperplanes intersecting that convex hull is compact. So
has a subsequence that converges to a hyperplane
.
It's easy to see that separates
from
for each
, and so
separates
from
. So
must contain
and support
.
Note that the theorem does not guarantee the existence of a Pareto optimum. But if is closed and bounded, then a Pareto optimum exists.
A limitation of the theorem is that it assumes a finite list of values , not an infinite one.
Nope. In fact, the one I wrote no longer shows up for me in my comment either. How odd.
Does it show up for you in the html source?
Maybe an unescaped character is causing the trouble.