Comment on Ellsberg's two-color experiment, portfolio inertia and ambiguity
The final step in the proof of Proposition 1 (p.311) of Mukerji and Tallon (2003) may not hold in generalbecause $\varepsilon>0$ in the proof cannot be chosen independently of $w,z$. We point out by a counterexample that the axioms they impose are too weak for Proposition 1. We introduce a modified set of axioms and re-establish the proposition
|Date of creation:||Sep 2008|
|Date of revision:|
|Publication status:||Published in International Journal of Economic Theory, Wiley, 2008, 4 (3), pp.433-444. <10.1111/j.1742-7363.2008.00087.x>|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00175266|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mukerji, Sujoy & Tallon, Jean-Marc, 2003.
"Ellsberg's two-color experiment, portfolio inertia and ambiguity,"
Journal of Mathematical Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 39(3-4), pages 299-316, June.
- Sujoy Mukerji & Jean-Marc Tallon, 2003. "Ellsberg's two-color experiment, portfolio inertia and ambiguity," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00499358, HAL.
- Sujoy Mukerji & Peter Klibanoff, 2002.
"A Smooth Model of Decision,Making Under Ambiguity,"
Economics Series Working Papers
113, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-00175266. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.