"To prove that one agent imposes his preferences over society's, assume he imposes his preferences over society's".
Jesus...
Not a troll. To obtain the result you have to assume that at least one of the preferences is imposed by one of the agents. If we had a matrix to show the social preferences we'd be stuck. The theorem requires that one of the alternatives is imposed over the others when there's indifference between two agents.
Technically without that assumption we would be on a tie between the agents.
"Next we argue that there is a voter n* who is extremely pivotal in the sense that by changing his vote at some profile he can move b from the very bottom of the social ranking to the very top"
http://cowles.econ.yale.edu/~gean/art/p1116.pdf
Basically, assume that for some reason an individual arbitrarily changes his vote according to the dictator's preferences.
Wow! What a f**king result. Assume the dictator makes his preferences society's preferences and THERE YOU GO! We have a dictator.
Are you purposefully retarded or your mom got drunk too often while she was pregnant with you?
Not a troll. To obtain the result you have to assume that at least one of the preferences is imposed by one of the agents. If we had a matrix to show the social preferences we'd be stuck. The theorem requires that one of the alternatives is imposed over the others when there's indifference between two agents.
Technically without that assumption we would be on a tie between the agents.
"
Basically, assume that for some reason an individual arbitrarily changes his vote according to the dictator's preferences.
Wow! What a f**king result. Assume the dictator makes his preferences society's preferences and THERE YOU GO! We have a dictator.
So you assume that there is a dictator and then conclude that we have a dictator
Are you purposefully retarded or your mom got drunk too often while she was pregnant with you?
Thanks for the insight pal. If we have a Paretian functional every agent is the same. Why would there be a dictator when there three alternatives? Oh, that's right! Because we have to assume arbitrarily that one of the agent gives on one of the dictator's preferences.
How is even this realistic?
How is this not dubious at best?
"
Basically, assume that for some reason an individual arbitrarily changes his vote according to the dictator's preferences.
Wow! What a f**king result. Assume the dictator makes his preferences society's preferences and THERE YOU GO! We have a dictator.So you assume that there is a dictator and then conclude that we have a dictator
Exactly. That's the whole point. The result leads nowhere if you don't make that stupid assumption.
"
Basically, assume that for some reason an individual arbitrarily changes his vote according to the dictator's preferences.
Wow! What a f**king result. Assume the dictator makes his preferences society's preferences and THERE YOU GO! We have a dictator.
So you assume that there is a dictator and then conclude that we have a dictatorExactly. That's the whole point. The result leads nowhere if you don't make that stupid assumption.
It's a reasonable assumption that nobody dictates your preferences initially.
Rule of thumb: if you think Arrow made a stupid mistake a moron like you can spot, then you probably didn’t read the paper carefully.
By the way, it is one of the most (probably The most famous) theorems in Social Choice that has been read by dozen of thousands of micro theorist.
Stop bulls**tting
please post the entire proof you are complaining about
http://i.imgur.com/mggQmPt.png
Look, we have two agents. If we rank the social preferences we get there. Right? Basically we get stuck. Now, to prove that the column agent is the dictator, the demonstration requires the assumption that at least one of the alternatives in a case of indifference is strictly preferred. For example, take column two, row one and ASSUME b is strictly preferred to c.
DONE! We did what the dictator likes the most and we have now a dictator!!
Rule of thumb: if you think Arrow made a stupid mistake a moron like you can spot, then you probably didn’t read the paper carefully.
I'm not saying the proof is wrong. I'm saying the structure of the theorem has a dubious assumption making the whole thing completely unrealistic.
please post the entire proof you are complaining about
http://i.imgur.com/mggQmPt.png
Look, we have two agents. If we rank the social preferences we get there. Right? Basically we get stuck. Now, to prove that the column agent is the dictator, the demonstration requires the assumption that at least one of the alternatives in a case of indifference is strictly preferred. For example, take column two, row one and ASSUME b is strictly preferred to c.
DONE! We did what the dictator likes the most and we have now a dictator!!
GTFO UNDERGRAD.
This topic has been closed to new replies.