I am stuck on the following exercise, related to preference relations and von-Neumann-Morgenstern utility function.

A farmer wants to dig a well in a square field $[0,1000]\times[0,1000]$. The preferences of the farmer on the possible locations are lexicographic, i.e:

  • If $x_1<x_2$ then $(x_1,y_1)\prec(x_2,y_2)$ for all $y_1,y_2$.
  • If $x_1=x_2=x$, then $(x,y_1)\prec(x,y_2)$ iff $y_1 < y_2$.

Initially, assume that the well location must have integer coordinates. Is there a preference relation on lotteries, that satisfies the von-Neumann-Morgenstern axioms, and extends the lexicographic preference relation? If so, what is a linear utility function that represents this relation?

I think the answer is yes, and a possible linear utility function is: $u(x,y)=100000x + y$.

Now, assume that the well location can have real coordinates. Prove that there is no linear utility function that represents the preference relation on lotteries. Which one of von-Neumann-Morgenstern axioms is violated by the preference relation on lotteries?

Here I am stuck. I don't understand why the utility function I suggested above doesn't work? And what axiom is violated here?


We can say more generally that lexical preferences are not representable using a continuous utility function. Lexical preferences are not continuous. Note the definition of a continuous preference relation.

The preference relation $\succeq$ is continuous if for any sequences of consumption bundles $(x_{i})_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ and $(y_{i})_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ with $x_{i} \to x$, $y_{i} \to y$, and $x_{i} \succeq y_{i}$ for each $i \in \mathbb{N}$, then $x \succeq y$. That is, continuity preserves the relation at the limit point.

Consider $(x_{i})_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ defined by $x_{i} = (\frac{1}{2^{i}}, 0)$ and $(y_{i})_{i \in \mathbb{N}}$ defined by $y_{i} = (0, 1)$. Clearly, $x_{i} \succeq y_{i}$ for each $i \in \mathbb{N}$. However, $x_{i} \to (0, 0)$ while $y_{i} \to (0, 1)$. So this preference relation is not preserved at the limit point.

Even more generally, no utility function represents the lexical preference relation. I prove for $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2}$, but this argument extends to $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{n}$ by projecting into $\mathbb{R}_{+}^{2}$.

Proof: Suppose to the contrary that some utility function $u : \mathbb{R}_{+}^{2} \to \mathbb{R}$ represents $\succ_{lex}$. We thus have $u(x, 1) > u(x, 0)$, as $(x, 1) \succ (x, 0)$. We construct the interval $I(x) = [u(x, 0), u(x, 1)]$. Now for any two distinct $x, y \in \mathbb{R}_{+}$, $I(x) \cap I(y) = \emptyset$ as we have either $x > y$ or $y > x$ (so WLOG, we have $(x, 0) \succ (y, 1)$).

Define $\mathbb{I} = \{ I(x) : x \in \mathbb{R}_{+} \}$, and let $\phi : \mathbb{R}_{+} \to \mathbb{I}$ be given by $\phi(x) = I(x)$. Observe that $\phi$ is an injection, as each $I(x), I(y)$ are disjoint for distinct $x, y$.

Note that $\mathbb{Q}$ is dense in $\mathbb{R}$. So there exists a rational number in each interval. Define $\tau : \mathbb{I} \to \mathbb{Q}$ such that $\tau(I(x))$ returns a rational number contained in $I(x)$. So $\tau$ is an injection. We have $\tau$ composed with $\phi$ an injection, which implies $|\mathbb{R}_{+}| \leq |\mathbb{Q}_{+}|$, a contradiction. QED.

  • $\begingroup$ I rejected the edit because I assume WLOG x > y. So I meant to say what I wrote in the proof. :-) $\endgroup$ – ml0105 Aug 13 '15 at 17:26
  • $\begingroup$ So how does $u(x,0)>u(y,0)$ and $u(x,1)>u(y,1)$ imply that $I(x)\cap I(y)=\emptyset$? $\endgroup$ – Erel Segal-Halevi Aug 13 '15 at 18:40
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, whoops. The edit you proposed was correct. We would have $u(x, 0) > u(y, 1)$ WLOG. Sorry for that minor error! $\endgroup$ – ml0105 Aug 13 '15 at 18:47
  • $\begingroup$ ‎Thanks. So, this impossibility result has nothing to do with probabilities or with von-Neumann-Morgenstern. $\endgroup$ – Erel Segal-Halevi Aug 14 '15 at 5:15
  • $\begingroup$ It's a more general result in topology that happens to come up in consumer theory. I view consumer theory as applied topology with an economics intuition. $\endgroup$ – ml0105 Aug 14 '15 at 5:18

Consider the locations (1) $(0.000001,1)$ and (2) $(0.0000005,10)$. $U\left(x_1,y_1\right) = 1.1$.$U\left(x_2,y_2\right) = 10.05$. However, $x_2 < x_1$, so this is not a lexicographic ordering. It is only with the additional constraint that the values of $x$ and $y$ be integers $\in[0,1000]$ that the function you proposes has this attribute. Because real values of $x$ and $y$ implies that $x_i / y_i$ can be made arbitrarily large or small, no linear function can guarantee a lexicographic ordering over all possible values of $x$ and $y$. That is, specify a utility function of the form $$U = \beta \cdot X + Y$$ If $X$ has to be an integer then as long as $\beta>1000$ this will be lexicographic on the domain of the problem because a one unit increase in $X$ will always pay off more utility than 1,000 units of $Y$. But if $X$ is a real number, the problem changes. Consider any arbitrarily value of $\beta > 1000$ that would have satisfied the integer problem. For changes in $X > 1/\beta$ this continues to work (preserve the lex. prefs) in the real number problem. But for changes in $\Delta X < 1000 / \beta$: $$ U(X + \Delta X,0) = \beta (X+\Delta X) < \beta X + 1000= U(X,1000)$$ Because by construction $\beta \cdot \Delta X < 1000$. So these preferences are not lexicographic over arbitrary values of $X$ and $Y$.


Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.