Timeline for Writing the core as the intersection of pareto efficient outcomes of all coalitions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 19, 2015 at 18:15 | comment | added | Giskard | @möbius No, the allocation $x$ does not have to feasible for any coalition other than the grand coalitions. Only the other allocation with which coalition $S$ blocks $x$ has to be feasible for $S$. I am afraid there is no very simple way of putting it. Perhaps the best way you could phrase it is: $x$ is such that no coalition can Pareto-improve upon their share using only their own resources. | |
| Dec 19, 2015 at 15:32 | vote | accept | möbius | ||
| Dec 19, 2015 at 15:32 | comment | added | möbius | I see what you mean. So I needed to change "pareto efficient" in $F_{1}$ to "pareto efficient and feasible"? | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 19:21 | history | edited | Giskard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 48 characters in body
|
| Dec 18, 2015 at 19:11 | history | edited | Giskard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
example
|
| Dec 18, 2015 at 19:09 | comment | added | Giskard | @möbius I said that for allocation $x$ there is no Pareto-improvement that $A$ and $B$ can do. You said that allocation is $x$ is Pareto-efficient. The two are only the same if $A$ and $B$ can make allocation $x$ happen. I edited my answer to include an example of the difference. | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 18:46 | comment | added | möbius | First of all, thanks for your answer! However, I am not clear on the difference between the way you have defined $F_{1}$ and the way I have defined it as the pareto efficient outcome in a two person game between $A$ and $B$. It seems to me that the way you have defined $F_{1}$ is equivalent to "there does not exist a feasible allocation at least as good for $A$ and $B$, but strictly preferred by $A$ or $B$". Isn't this the definition of pareto efficiency? I am confused with this. | |
| Dec 18, 2015 at 18:35 | history | answered | Giskard | CC BY-SA 3.0 |