Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||A choice correspondence is weak justified if non-chosen alternative is dominated by any other obtainable alternative, and for each discarded alternative there is some chosen alternative which dominates it. This definition allows us to build a connection between the behavioral property expressed by the weak axiom of revealed non-inferiority and a weak form of maximality. It is weaker than the form of maximality characterized by the weak axiom of revealed preference.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Paul E. Howard (1973). Limitations on the Fraenkel-Mostowski Method of Independence Proofs. Journal of Symbolic Logic 38 (3):416-422.
H. Andréka, I. Németi & R. J. Thompson (1990). Weak Cylindric Set Algebras and Weak Subdirect Indecomposability. Journal of Symbolic Logic 55 (2):577-588.
Gary P. Shannon (1988). Equivalent Versions of a Weak Form of the Axiom of Choice. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29 (4):569-573.
Osamu Mori (2003). Sanyi's Social Aggregation Theorem and Dictatorship. Theory and Decision 55 (3):257-272.
Klaus Ambos-Spies, Bj�Rn Kjos-Hanssen, Steffen Lempp & Theodore A. Slaman (2004). Comparing DNR and WWKL. Journal of Symbolic Logic 69 (4):1089 - 1104.
Daniel M. Hausman (2000). Revealed Preference, Belief, and Game Theory. Economics and Philosophy 16 (1):99-115.
G. P. Monro (1983). On Generic Extensions Without the Axiom of Choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic 48 (1):39-52.
Elliott Mendelson (1956). The Independence of a Weak Axiom of Choice. Journal of Symbolic Logic 21 (4):350-366.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads2 ( #246,187 of 733,590 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?