Search Results
Search type | Search syntax |
---|---|
Tags | [tag] |
Exact | "words here" |
Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
Views | views:250 |
Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
URL | url:"*.example.com" |
Saves | in:saves |
Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
Types |
is:question is:answer |
Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
For more details on advanced search visit our help page |
2
votes
1
answer
91
views
need help from theorists: proof in Cole, Mailath, and Postlewaite (2001)
I have one question in the proof for section 4.1. in Cole, Mailath, and Postlewaite (2001).
$$\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0}\frac{1}{2\varepsilon}\int_{\overline{l}-\varepsilon}^{\overline{l}+\varepsilon} …
1
vote
1
answer
38
views
Implication of the concavity of u
Suppose that we have the following inequality:
$u( y- d) - u(y-d') \ge u(y' - d) - u( y' -d')$.
The concavity of $u$ together with $y\le y'$ then implies that $d \le d'$.
I sometimes come across thi …
1
vote
0
answers
42
views
some question on Buera and Nicolini (2004)
I am struggling with understanding one result in Buera and Nicolini (2004) published in JME. In page 538, they write
$$A_t(h^t) b_{t-1}(h^{t-1}) = Z_t(h^{t-1})$$
where $A_t(h^t)$ is a $N \times J$ mat …
2
votes
2
answers
65
views
understanding the proof of stochastic dominance.
$\int_a^b u(x)dF(x)$ (1)$ = u(t)F(t)|_a^b - \int_a^b F(t)u^\prime(t)dt$ (2)$ = u(b)-\int_a^b F(t)u^\prime(t)dt$
$= u(b)-(\Phi(t)u^\prime(t)|_a^b-\int_a^b \Phi(t)u^{\prime\prime}(t)dt=u(b)-\Phi(b)u^\p …
3
votes
1
answer
91
views
Envelope Theorem in Hopkins and Kornienko (2010)
This is from Hopkins and Kornienko (2010). In this model, $x$ is investments, $s$ is status, and $y=z-x$ is leisure, where $z$ is endowments. $x(r)$ is the optimal investment, and the relative investm …
1
vote
0
answers
60
views
proof verification in George J. Mailath and Andrew Postlewaite (2001b)
I am reading George J. Mailath and Andrew Postlewaite (2001), and this is the lemma 1 in this paper. I don't understand the induction process in this proof. I think that we should use the fact that …