IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/unm/umagsb/2018013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A foundation for probabilistic beliefs with or without atoms

Author

Listed:
  • Mackenzie, Andrew

    (Microeconomics & Public Economics, RS: GSBE ETBC)

Abstract

We provide sufficient conditions for a qualitative probability (Bernstein, 1917; de Finetti, 1937; Koopman, 1940; Savage, 1954) that satisfies monotone continuity (Villegas, 1964; Arrow, 1970) to have a unique countably additive measure representation, generalizing Villegas (1964) to allow atoms. Unlike previous contributions, we do so without a cancellation or solvability axiom. First, we establish that when atoms contain singleton cores, unlikely cores—the requirement that the union of all cores is not more likely than its complement—is sufficient (Theorem 3). Second, we establish that strict third-order atom-swarming—the requirement that for each atom A, the less likely non-null events are (in an ordinal sense) more than three times as likely as A—is also sufficient (Theorem 5). This latter result applies to intertemporal preferences over streams of indivisible objects.

Suggested Citation

  • Mackenzie, Andrew, 2018. "A foundation for probabilistic beliefs with or without atoms," Research Memorandum 013, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
  • Handle: RePEc:unm:umagsb:2018013
    DOI: 10.26481/umagsb.2018013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cris.maastrichtuniversity.nl/ws/files/26038116/RM18013.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.26481/umagsb.2018013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kopylov, Igor, 2007. "Subjective probabilities on "small" domains," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 236-265, March.
    2. Massimo Marinacci, 1993. "On the Ranges of Baire and Borel Measures," Discussion Papers 1033, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    3. Alain Chateauneuf & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2005. "Monotone continuous multiple priors," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 26(4), pages 973-982, November.
    4. José Luis Montiel Olea & Tomasz Strzalecki, 2014. "Axiomatization and Measurement of Quasi-Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 129(3), pages 1449-1499.
    5. Epstein, Larry G & Zhang, Jiankang, 2001. "Subjective Probabilities on Subjectively Unambiguous Events," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 265-306, March.
    6. George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 573-597.
    7. Berliant, Marcus C, 1986. "A Utility Representation for a Preference Relation on a s-Algebra," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 359-362, March.
    8. Machina, Mark J & Schmeidler, David, 1992. "A More Robust Definition of Subjective Probability," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 745-780, July.
    9. Chateauneuf, Alain, 1985. "On the existence of a probability measure compatible with a total preorder on a Boolean algebra," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 43-52, February.
    10. Ergin, Haluk & Gul, Faruk, 2009. "A theory of subjective compound lotteries," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 899-929, May.
    11. Nehring, Klaus, 2009. "Imprecise probabilistic beliefs as a context for decision-making under ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 1054-1091, May.
    12. Berliant, Marcus & Thomson, William & Dunz, Karl, 1992. "On the fair division of a heterogeneous commodity," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 201-216.
    13. Kopylov, Igor, 2010. "Simple axioms for countably additive subjective probability," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 867-876, September.
    14. Berliant, Marcus, 1985. "Equilibrium models with land : A criticism and an alternative," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 325-340, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bonanno, Giacomo & Tsakas, Elias, 2018. "Common belief of weak-dominance rationality in strategic-form games: A qualitative analysis," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 231-241.
    2. Thai Ha-Huy, 2019. "Savage's theorem with atoms," Documents de recherche 19-05, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    3. Baillon, Aurélien & Bleichrodt, Han & Li, Chen & Wakker, Peter P., 2021. "Belief hedges: Measuring ambiguity for all events and all models," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    4. Stanca, Lorenzo, 2020. "A simplified approach to subjective expected utility," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 151-160.
    5. Giacomo Bonanno & Elias Tsakas, 2017. "Qualitative analysis of common belief of rationality in strategic-form games," Working Papers 181, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    6. Giulio Principi & Peter P. Wakker & Ruodu Wang, 2023. "Antimonotonicity for Preference Axioms: The Natural Counterpart to Comonotonicity," Papers 2307.08542, arXiv.org.
    7. Giacomo Bonanno & Elias Tsakas, 2017. "Qualitative analysis of common belief of rationality in strategic-form games," Working Papers 175, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    8. Andrew Mackenzie, 2021. "On atom-swarming and Luce’s theorem for probabilistic beliefs," Economic Theory Bulletin, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 9(1), pages 67-74, April.
    9. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Wakker, Peter P., 2020. "Savage for dummies and experts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thai Ha-Huy, 2019. "Savage's theorem with atoms," Documents de recherche 19-05, Centre d'Études des Politiques Économiques (EPEE), Université d'Evry Val d'Essonne.
    2. Klaus Nehring, 2006. "Decision-Making in the Context of Imprecise Probabilistic Beliefs," Economics Working Papers 0034, Institute for Advanced Study, School of Social Science.
    3. Simone Cerreia-Vioglio & Paolo Ghirardato & Fabio Maccheroni & Massimo Marinacci & Marciano Siniscalchi, 2011. "Rational preferences under ambiguity," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 341-375, October.
    4. Gul, Faruk & Pesendorfer, Wolfgang, 2020. "Calibrated uncertainty," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2017. "Expected utility with uncertain probabilities theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 91-103.
    6. Pivato, Marcus & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2017. "Subjective expected utility representations for Savage preferences on topological spaces," MPRA Paper 77359, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    8. Peter Klibanoff & Massimo Marinacci & Sujoy Mukerji, 2011. "Definitions of ambiguous events and the smooth ambiguity model," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 48(2), pages 399-424, October.
    9. Grant, Simon & Rich, Patricia & Stecher, Jack, 2022. "Bayes and Hurwicz without Bernoulli," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    10. Qu, Xiangyu, 2013. "Maxmin expected utility with additivity on unambiguous events," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 245-249.
    11. Anastasia Burkovskaya, 2022. "A model of state aggregation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 73(1), pages 121-149, February.
    12. Craig Webb, 2015. "Piecewise additivity for non-expected utility," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 60(2), pages 371-392, October.
    13. Alon, Shiri & Lehrer, Ehud, 2014. "Subjective multi-prior probability: A representation of a partial likelihood relation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 476-492.
    14. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Wakker, Peter P., 2020. "Savage for dummies and experts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    15. Daniele Pennesi, 2017. "Uncertain discount and hyperbolic preferences," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 315-336, October.
    16. Cerreia-Vioglio, S. & Maccheroni, F. & Marinacci, M. & Montrucchio, L., 2011. "Uncertainty averse preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(4), pages 1275-1330, July.
    17. Xiangyu Qu, 2015. "Purely subjective extended Bayesian models with Knightian unambiguity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 79(4), pages 547-571, December.
    18. Pivato, Marcus & Vergopoulos, Vassili, 2020. "Subjective expected utility with imperfect perception," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 104-122.
    19. Craig S. Webb, 2019. "Trichotomic discounted utility," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 87(3), pages 321-339, October.
    20. Izhakian, Yehuda, 2020. "A theoretical foundation of ambiguity measurement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:unm:umagsb:2018013. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Andrea Willems or Leonne Portz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/meteonl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.