Proof of fungibility theorem
post by Nisan · 2013-01-12T09:26:09.484Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 10 commentsContents
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
a 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: Nisancomment 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 · 2013-01-23T06:45:31.060Z · 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.