Proof of fungibility theorem

post by Nisan · 2013-01-12T09:26:09.484Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 10 comments

Contents

10 comments

Appendix to: A fungibility theorem

Suppose that is a set and we have functions . Recall that for , we say that is a Pareto improvement over if for all , we have . And we say that it is a strong Pareto improvement if in addition there is some for which . We call Pareto optimum if there is no strong Pareto improvement over it.

Theorem. Let be a set and suppose for are functions satisfying the following property: For any and any , there exists an such that for all , we have .

Then if an element of is a Pareto optimum, then there exist nonnegative constants such that the function achieves a maximum at .

Proof. Let . By hypothesis, the image is convex.

For , let the Pareto volume of be the set

This is a closed convex set. Note that is a Pareto optimum precisely when . Let's assume that this is the case; we just have to prove that maximizes for some choice of .

It suffices to find a hyperplane that contains and that supports . Then the desired function can be constructed by ensuring that is a level set.

If lies in a proper affine subspace of , let be the smallest such subspace. Let be the interior of in and let be the interior of . The case where is a point is trivial; suppose it's not, so is nonempty. By convexity, is the closure of and is the closure of .

Since is convex, is convex, and we can exhaust with a nested sequence of nonempty compact convex sets . And is convex, so we can exhaust with a nested sequence of nonempty compact convex sets . By the hyperplane separation theorem, for each , there is a hyperplane separating and . I claim that has a convergent subsequence. Indeed, each must intersect the convex hull of , and the space of hyperplanes intersecting that convex hull is compact. So has a subsequence that converges to a hyperplane .

It's easy to see that separates from for each , and so separates from . So must contain and support .

 

Note that the theorem does not guarantee the existence of a Pareto optimum. But if is closed and bounded, then a Pareto optimum exists.

A limitation of the theorem is that it assumes a finite list of values , not an infinite one.

10 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Oscar_Cunningham · 2013-01-12T11:44:19.858Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Couldn't this have been in a comment to the original post or on the wiki?

Replies from: Nisan
comment by Nisan · 2013-01-15T08:16:55.740Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Would you prefer it that way?

Replies from: Oscar_Cunningham
comment by Oscar_Cunningham · 2013-01-15T18:31:10.751Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Yeah, just to keep the list of posts tidy.

Replies from: Nisan
comment by Nisan · 2013-01-18T00:15:27.453Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'll do it that way in the future.

comment by AlexMennen · 2013-01-23T04:54:56.236Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

It suffices to find a hyperplane that contains ) and that supports ).

I assume you also want it to support ?

I love this proof, by the way.

Replies from: Nisan, Nisan
comment by Nisan · 2013-01-23T06:53:15.192Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Ah, you're right. The important thing is that it supports V(P). Thanks.

comment by Nisan · 2013-01-23T06:45:31.060Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The definition of pv is the next line. Does that not show up for you?

Replies from: AlexMennen
comment by AlexMennen · 2013-01-23T16:25:24.816Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Nope. In fact, the one I wrote no longer shows up for me in my comment either. How odd.

Replies from: Nisan
comment by Nisan · 2013-01-23T19:03:26.688Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Does it show up for you in the html source?

Maybe an unescaped character is causing the trouble.

Replies from: AlexMennen
comment by AlexMennen · 2013-01-23T23:01:18.707Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Problem appears to have been on my end. I can see both now.