Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
3. In Problem 4, the presumption mentions about only one direction. Actually, it is assumed
that [u(x) > u(y) =⇒ x ≻ y], but not vice versa. You need to claim that [x ≿ y =⇒
u(x) ≥ u(y)] by using contraposition.
4. There are many solutions for Problem 5, but the simplest way is maybe to construct
in practice. Many of you constructed a utility function by induction about the number
of alternatives. On the way, you might partition X into equivalence classes. I left this
important theorem in Appendix, so please see if you are interested in. (Here, I constructed
by the alternative way, this is much more simple.)
Problem 1
Take any x, y, z ∈ X with x ≻ y ≿ z. By x ≻ y, x ≿ y. Then, by the transitivity of ≿,
x ≿ z. If z ≿ x, then y ≿ x by the transitivity of ≿. This is a contradiction to x ≻ y. Hence,
¬(z ≿ x). Therefore, x ≻ z. □
Problem 2
(i). (Irreflexivity). Take any x ∈ X. If x ≻ x, then both x ≿ x and ¬(x ≿ x) hold
simultaneously, which is a contradiction. Hence, ¬(x ≻ x).
1
Problem 3
Take any x, y ∈ X.
First, suppose that x ≿ y. Since u is a utility function representing ≿, u(x) ≥ u(y). If
u(x) = u(y),
v(x) = f (u(x)) = f (u(y)) = v(y).
If u(x) > u(y), since f is strictly increasing,
Problem 4
Take any x, y ∈ X.
First, suppose that x ≿ y. Let us show that u(x) ≥ u(y). If u(x) < u(y), then y ≻ x by the
assumption. This is a contradiction to x ≿ y. Hence, u(x) ≥ u(y) holds.
Second, suppose that u(x) ≥ u(y). If u(x) > u(y), then x ≻ y. If u(x) = u(y), then x ∼ y.
In any case, x ≿ y holds. □
Problem 5
For each x ∈ X, let L(x) = {y ∈ X : x ≿ y}. By the reflexibity of ≿,
x ∈ L(x), ∀x ∈ X. (1)
By the completeness of ≿,
u(x) = #L(x), ∀x ∈ X,
Proof. If part. Suppose that L(x) ⊂ L(y). By (1), x ∈ L(x). Hence, x ∈ L(y).
Only if part. Suppose that x ∈ L(y). Take any z ∈ L(x). Then, x ≿ z. By the assumption,
y ≿ x. By the transitivity of ≿, y ≿ z. Hence, z ∈ L(y). ■
2
Proof. Show by contraposition. Suppose that L(y) ̸⊂ L(x). Then, there exists z ∈ L(y) \ L(x).
By z ∈ L(y) and Lemma 1, L(z) ⊂ L(y). By z ∈ / L(x) and (2), x ∈ L(z). Then, by Lemma 1,
L(x) ⊂ L(z). By the transitivity of ⊂, L(x) ⊂ L(y). Hence L(x) is a proper subset of L(y),
which implies #L(y) > #L(x). ■
Now, let us show that u is a utility function representing ≿. To see this, we use the result
of Problem 4. Take any x, y ∈ X.
First, suppose u(x) = u(y). Then, by Lemma 2, L(x) = L(y). This and (1) together imply
that x ∈ L(y) and y ∈ L(x). Hence, x ∼ y.
Second, suppose u(x) > u(y). Then, by Lemma 2, L(y) ⊂ L(x). From this and (1),
y ∈ L(x). Thus, x ≿ y. On the other hand, if x ∈ L(y), L(x) ⊂ L(y) by Lemma 1. Then
L(x) = L(y), but this is a contradiction to u(x) > u(y). So x ∈ / L(y), and thus ¬(y ≿ x).
Hence, x ≻ y.
Those arguments and Problem 4 together show that u is a utility function representing ≿.
Therefore, we have completed the proof. □
Appendix
A set can be partitioned into classes by a binary relation if and only if it is an equivalence
relation (reflexive, transitive and symmetric).
Theorem 1. Let ∼ be a binary relation on X. Define Ma ≡ {x ∈ X : a ∼ x} for all a ∈ X.
Then ∼ is an equivalence relation on X if and only if there exists ∆ ⊂ X satisfying
∪
i) X = Ma ;
a∈∆
ii) ∀a, b ∈ ∆ with a ̸= b, Ma ∩ Mb = ∅;
iii) ∀x ∈ X, [x ∈ Ma =⇒ Ma = Mx ].
Proof. Step 1: If part. Let ∼ be a binary relation on X. Suppose that there exists ∆ ⊂ X
satisfying (i), (ii) and (iii).
(Reflexivity). Take any x ∈ X. By (i), there exists a ∈ ∆ such that x ∈ Ma . Then, by (iii),
Ma = Mx . Then x ∈ Xx , i.e., x ∼ x.
y ∈ Mx and z ∈ My . (3)
x ∈ Ma , y ∈ Mb and z ∈ Mc . (4)
Then, by (iii),
Ma = Mx , Mb = My and Mc = Mz . (5)
Then, by (3), (4) and (5), y ∈ Ma ∩ Mb and z ∈ Mb ∩ Mc , that is, Ma and Mb (Mb and Mc ) are
not disjoint. Thus, by (ii), a = b = c. Hence, by (4) and (5), z ∈ Mx , i.e., x ∼ z.
3
(Symmetry). Take any x, y ∈ X with x ∼ y. Then,
y ∈ Mx . (6)
x ∈ Ma and y ∈ Mb . (7)
Then, by (iii),
Ma = Mx and Mb = My . (8)
Then, by (6), (7) and (8), y ∈ Ma ∩ Mb , that is, Ma and Mb are not disjoint. Thus, by (ii),
a = b. Hence, by (7) and (8), x ∈ Xy , i.e., y ∼ x.
Step 2: Only if part. Suppose that ∼ is an equivalence relation on X. We claim that for
any x, y ∈ X, Mx and My are either disjoint or identical. To see this, pick any x, y ∈ X.
Case 2: ¬(x ∼ y). Let us show that Mx ∩ My = ∅. Suppose, by contradiction, that there
exists z ∈ Mx ∩ My . Then, x ∼ z and y ∼ z. By the transitivity and symmetry of ∼, x ∼ y, a
contradiction. Therefore, Mx ∩ My = ∅.
Now, consider the family M of all Mx . Usually, a set doesn’t count exactly the same element
“twice”.2 Therefore, all sets in M are distinct, and thus, pairwise-disjoint. Then, assigning
appropriate indices to each set in M (pick any a ∈ M for all M ∈ M as a representative
element), we get the partition M = {Ma }a∈∆ of X. Clearly, ∆ satisfies (i), (ii) and (iii) by the
construction. □
2
We never write {1, 2, 3, 5, 8, · · · } as {1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 · · · } even though 1 appears twice in the Fibonacci sequence.