In this paper we examine optimal bidding without the independence axiom in a unified framework which allows for a clear graphical representation. Thus, we can show very simply the independence axiom to be a necessary and sufficient condition on preferences for strategical equivalence of the two first-price and second-price auctions, respectively, and for the second-price sealed-bid auction to be demand revealing. The analysis reveals that the betweenness property is necessary and sufficient for the ascending-bid auction to (...) be demand revealing while optimal bids exceed (are less than) bidders' valuations, iff preferences are quasiconcave (quasiconvex). Furthermore, it can be shown that fanning out (fanning in) leads to a higher (lower) selling-price in open than in sealed-bid auctions. (shrink)

Current axiomatizations for extensive measurement postulate the existence of infinitely small objects. This assumption is neither necessary nor reasonable. This paper develops this theme and presents a more acceptable axiom system. A representation theorem is stated and proved in detail. This work improves some previous results of the author.

An agent who violates independence can avoid dynamic inconsistency in sequential choice if he is sophisticated enough to make use of backward induction in planning. However, Seidenfeld has demonstrated that such a sophisticated agent with dependent preferences is bound to violate the principle of dynamic substitution, according to which admissibility of a plan is preserved under substitution of indifferent options at various choice nodes in the decision tree. Since Seidenfeld considers dynamic substitution to be a coherence condition on dynamic (...) choice, he concludes that sophistication cannot save a violator of independence from incoherence. In response to McClennen’s objection that relying on dynamic substitution when independence is at stake must be question-begging, Seidenfeld undertakes to prove that dynamic substitution follows from the principle of backward induction alone, provided we assume that the agent’s admissible choices from different sets of feasible plans are all based on a fixed underlying preference ordering of plans. This paper shows that Seidenfeld's proof fails: depending on the interpretation, it is either invalid or based on an unacceptable assumption. (shrink)

Independence is the condition that, if X is preferred to Y, then a lottery between X and Z is preferred to a lottery between Y and Z given the same probability of Z. Is it rationally required that one’s preferences conform to Independence? The main objection to this requirement is that it would rule out the alleged rationality of Allais and Ellsberg Preferences. In this paper, I put forward a sequential dominance argument with fairly weak assumptions for a (...) variant of Independence (called Independence for Constant Prospects), which shows that Allais and Ellsberg Preferences are irrational. Hence this influential objection (that is, the alleged rationality of Allais and Ellsberg Preferences) can be rebutted. I also put forward a number of sequential dominance arguments that various versions of Independence are requirements of rationality. One of these arguments is based on very minimal assumptions, but the arguments for the versions of Independence which are strong enough to serve in the standard axiomatization of Expected Utility Theory need notably stronger assumptions. (shrink)

We provide a new behavioral foundation for subjective expected utility within the Anscombe–Aumann framework. In contrast to the original axiomatization of SEU, our behavioral foundation establishes that to be consistent with SEU maximization, we need not explicitly assume that preferences satisfy the independence axiom over the domain of all acts. Rather, the substantive implications of independence for an SEU representation may equivalently be derived from less demanding conditions over certain smaller classes of acts. These acts, which we (...) refer to as uncertainty-free comparable acts, have the property that they are relatively simple for a decision maker to compare because she can rank acts within any such class based on her risk preferences alone, without having to consider the underlying uncertainty. Acts of this kind comprise constant acts and acts that are almost identical in the sense that they differ from one another in at most one state. (shrink)

We investigate various ways of introducing axioms for randomness in set theory. The results show that these axioms, when added to ZF, imply the failure of AC. But the axiom of extensionality plays an essential role in the derivation, and a deeper analysis may ultimately show that randomness is incompatible with extensionality.

We show that the both assertions “in every vector space B over a finite element field every subspace V ⊆ B has a complementary subspace S” and “for every family [MATHEMATICAL SCRIPT CAPITAL A] of disjoint odd sized sets there exists a subfamily ℱ={Fj:j ϵω} with a choice function” together imply the axiom of choice AC. We also show that AC is equivalent to the statement “in every vector space over ℚ every generating set includes a basis”.

Kanger [4] gives a set of twelve axioms for the classical propositional Calculus which, together with modus ponens and substitution, have the following nice properties: (0.1) Each axiom contains $\supset$ , and no axiom contains more than two different connectives. (0.2) Deletions of certain of the axioms yield the intuitionistic, minimal, and classical refutability1 subsystems of propositional calculus. (0.3) Each of these four systems of axioms has the separation property: that if a theorem is provable in such a (...) system, then it is provable using only the axioms of that system for $\supset$ , and for the other connectives, if any, actually occurring in that theorem. (0.4) All twelve axioms are independent. It is easily seen that two of Kanger's axioms can be shortened, and that two others can be replaced by a single axiom which is the same length as one of the two which it replaces, without disturbing properties (0.1)-(0.3). These alterations have advantages of simplicity and elegance, but bring property (0.4) into question, in that similarities among some of the axioms in the altered system make demonstrations of independence considerably more difficult. It is the purpose of this paper to show that independence is nonetheless provable for the simplified system, and in another system which also satisfies (0.1)-(0.3), in which f (falsehood) is taken to be primitive instead of ∼ (negation). Nonnormal truth-tables2 are used to obtain the independence of one of the axioms. (shrink)

It is widely believed that some puzzling and provocative remarks that Frege makes in his late writings indicate he rejected independence arguments in geometry, particularly arguments for the independence of the parallels axiom. I show that this is mistaken: Frege distinguished two approaches to independence arguments and his puzzling remarks apply only to one of them. Not only did Frege not reject independence arguments across the board, but also he had an interesting positive proposal about (...) the logical structure of correct independence arguments, deriving from the geometrical principle of duality and the associated idea of substitution invariance. The discussion also serves as a useful focal point for independently interesting details of Frege's mathematical environment. This feeds into a currently active scholarly debate because Frege's supposed attitude to independence arguments has been taken to support a widely accepted thesis (proposed by Ricketts among others) concerning Frege's attitude toward metatheory in general. I show that this thesis gains no support from Frege's puzzling remarks about independence arguments. (shrink)

Explicit axioms relating ◊ϕand □ϕ appear to be needed if ◊ is taken to be primitive. We prove that such axioms are in fact indispensable.

Let NBG be von Neumann-Bernays-Gödel set theory without the axiom of choice and let NBGA be the modification which allows atoms. In this paper we consider some of the well-known class or global forms of the wellordering theorem, the axiom of choice, and maximal principles which are known to be equivalent in NBG and show they are not equivalent in NBGA.

Rose has shown in [2] that the following axioms are sufficient, with modus ponens, for m-valued Łukasiewiczian implication.