Does the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility theorem work for infinite outcomes?












2












$begingroup$


The von Neumann-Morgenstern utility theorem is easy to prove for a finite number of outcomes. Is it still true for an infinite number of outcomes?



With infinite outcomes, a lottery can now be any probability distribution on the set of outcomes.



The problem seems to be that to prove the theorem one would need to use the independence axiom an infinite number of times, which of course is not possible.



If the theorem is false in the infinite case, can we generalize the axioms to make the theorem true?





Here is a (sketch of a) proof of the theorem for infinite outcomes if we only consider lotteries with finite support.



Let $A$ be the set of outcomes.



If $X sim Y$ for every $X, Y in A$, we define $u$ as $u(Z) = 0$ for all $Z in A$.



Otherwise, $X prec Y$ for some $X, Y in A$. We will define $u(X) = 0$ and $u(Y) = 1$.



For every outcome $Z in A$, we define $u_Z$ as the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function for the relation $prec$ restricted to lotteries over the set ${X, Y, Z}$. Since this set is finite, the theorem guarantees $u_Z$ will exist. We also require that $u_Z(X) = 0$ and $u_Z(Y) = 1$, which ensures uniqueness.



We now define $$u(Z) := u_Z(Z)$$ for all $Z in A$.



Now for any events $L, M$ with finite support, we define the utility function $u_{L,M}$ as the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function for $prec$ restricted to the set ${X, Y} cup operatorname{supp}(L) cup operatorname{supp}(M)$. We again require that $u_{L,M}(X) = 0$ and $u_{L,M}(Y) = 1$. Now for every $Z$ in $u_{L,M}$'s domain, $u_Z$ is just a restriction of $u_{L,M}$. Therefore $u_{L,M}(Z) = u_Z(Z) = u(Z)$.



$L preceq M$ iff $E[u_{L,M}(L)] le E[u_{L,M}(M)]$ iff $E[u(L)] le E[u(M)]$



Q.E.D.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    The von Neumann-Morgenstern utility theorem is easy to prove for a finite number of outcomes. Is it still true for an infinite number of outcomes?



    With infinite outcomes, a lottery can now be any probability distribution on the set of outcomes.



    The problem seems to be that to prove the theorem one would need to use the independence axiom an infinite number of times, which of course is not possible.



    If the theorem is false in the infinite case, can we generalize the axioms to make the theorem true?





    Here is a (sketch of a) proof of the theorem for infinite outcomes if we only consider lotteries with finite support.



    Let $A$ be the set of outcomes.



    If $X sim Y$ for every $X, Y in A$, we define $u$ as $u(Z) = 0$ for all $Z in A$.



    Otherwise, $X prec Y$ for some $X, Y in A$. We will define $u(X) = 0$ and $u(Y) = 1$.



    For every outcome $Z in A$, we define $u_Z$ as the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function for the relation $prec$ restricted to lotteries over the set ${X, Y, Z}$. Since this set is finite, the theorem guarantees $u_Z$ will exist. We also require that $u_Z(X) = 0$ and $u_Z(Y) = 1$, which ensures uniqueness.



    We now define $$u(Z) := u_Z(Z)$$ for all $Z in A$.



    Now for any events $L, M$ with finite support, we define the utility function $u_{L,M}$ as the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function for $prec$ restricted to the set ${X, Y} cup operatorname{supp}(L) cup operatorname{supp}(M)$. We again require that $u_{L,M}(X) = 0$ and $u_{L,M}(Y) = 1$. Now for every $Z$ in $u_{L,M}$'s domain, $u_Z$ is just a restriction of $u_{L,M}$. Therefore $u_{L,M}(Z) = u_Z(Z) = u(Z)$.



    $L preceq M$ iff $E[u_{L,M}(L)] le E[u_{L,M}(M)]$ iff $E[u(L)] le E[u(M)]$



    Q.E.D.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      The von Neumann-Morgenstern utility theorem is easy to prove for a finite number of outcomes. Is it still true for an infinite number of outcomes?



      With infinite outcomes, a lottery can now be any probability distribution on the set of outcomes.



      The problem seems to be that to prove the theorem one would need to use the independence axiom an infinite number of times, which of course is not possible.



      If the theorem is false in the infinite case, can we generalize the axioms to make the theorem true?





      Here is a (sketch of a) proof of the theorem for infinite outcomes if we only consider lotteries with finite support.



      Let $A$ be the set of outcomes.



      If $X sim Y$ for every $X, Y in A$, we define $u$ as $u(Z) = 0$ for all $Z in A$.



      Otherwise, $X prec Y$ for some $X, Y in A$. We will define $u(X) = 0$ and $u(Y) = 1$.



      For every outcome $Z in A$, we define $u_Z$ as the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function for the relation $prec$ restricted to lotteries over the set ${X, Y, Z}$. Since this set is finite, the theorem guarantees $u_Z$ will exist. We also require that $u_Z(X) = 0$ and $u_Z(Y) = 1$, which ensures uniqueness.



      We now define $$u(Z) := u_Z(Z)$$ for all $Z in A$.



      Now for any events $L, M$ with finite support, we define the utility function $u_{L,M}$ as the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function for $prec$ restricted to the set ${X, Y} cup operatorname{supp}(L) cup operatorname{supp}(M)$. We again require that $u_{L,M}(X) = 0$ and $u_{L,M}(Y) = 1$. Now for every $Z$ in $u_{L,M}$'s domain, $u_Z$ is just a restriction of $u_{L,M}$. Therefore $u_{L,M}(Z) = u_Z(Z) = u(Z)$.



      $L preceq M$ iff $E[u_{L,M}(L)] le E[u_{L,M}(M)]$ iff $E[u(L)] le E[u(M)]$



      Q.E.D.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      The von Neumann-Morgenstern utility theorem is easy to prove for a finite number of outcomes. Is it still true for an infinite number of outcomes?



      With infinite outcomes, a lottery can now be any probability distribution on the set of outcomes.



      The problem seems to be that to prove the theorem one would need to use the independence axiom an infinite number of times, which of course is not possible.



      If the theorem is false in the infinite case, can we generalize the axioms to make the theorem true?





      Here is a (sketch of a) proof of the theorem for infinite outcomes if we only consider lotteries with finite support.



      Let $A$ be the set of outcomes.



      If $X sim Y$ for every $X, Y in A$, we define $u$ as $u(Z) = 0$ for all $Z in A$.



      Otherwise, $X prec Y$ for some $X, Y in A$. We will define $u(X) = 0$ and $u(Y) = 1$.



      For every outcome $Z in A$, we define $u_Z$ as the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function for the relation $prec$ restricted to lotteries over the set ${X, Y, Z}$. Since this set is finite, the theorem guarantees $u_Z$ will exist. We also require that $u_Z(X) = 0$ and $u_Z(Y) = 1$, which ensures uniqueness.



      We now define $$u(Z) := u_Z(Z)$$ for all $Z in A$.



      Now for any events $L, M$ with finite support, we define the utility function $u_{L,M}$ as the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function for $prec$ restricted to the set ${X, Y} cup operatorname{supp}(L) cup operatorname{supp}(M)$. We again require that $u_{L,M}(X) = 0$ and $u_{L,M}(Y) = 1$. Now for every $Z$ in $u_{L,M}$'s domain, $u_Z$ is just a restriction of $u_{L,M}$. Therefore $u_{L,M}(Z) = u_Z(Z) = u(Z)$.



      $L preceq M$ iff $E[u_{L,M}(L)] le E[u_{L,M}(M)]$ iff $E[u(L)] le E[u(M)]$



      Q.E.D.







      probability-theory game-theory expected-value decision-theory utility






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Jan 6 at 19:53









      palmpo

      3861113




      3861113










      asked Jan 6 at 0:46









      PyRulezPyRulez

      4,63622369




      4,63622369






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          It is not fully clear to me what the question is, but there is a huge literature on versions of the von Neumann and Morgenstern utility representation on infinite sets. The most common approach is to impose a continuity axiom. (Formally, there are different alternatives, f.i. assuming an archimedean property.)



          Among many possible references, I recommend J.-M. Grandmont, "Continuity properties of a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility", Journal of Economic Theory 4, 45-57. Theorem 2 provide simple conditions for existence that elucidate the role of the independence (or linearity) axiom. And Theorem clarifies the difference between assuming a continuous representation or a continuous NM-utility function.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            How does my answer look? math.stackexchange.com/a/3070682/49592
            $endgroup$
            – PyRulez
            2 days ago



















          0












          $begingroup$

          No, it does not hold in the infinite case (as stated). To see this, we will define a VNM-rational $prec$ that does not have a utility function.



          Let $A$ be any infinite set of outcomes. Then for lotteries $L$ and $M$, $L prec M$ iff the support of $L$ is finite and of $M$ is infinite.



          Completeness: We define $L preceq M$ as $M nprec L$. It is clear that $M nprec L$ or $L nprec M$, since otherwise $L prec M$ and $M prec L$, implying $L$ has both finite and infinite support, a contradiction.



          Transitivity: If $L prec M$ and $M prec N$, $L$ has finite support and $N$ has infinite support. Ergo, $L prec N$.



          Continuity: Given $L preceq M preceq N$, then we have two cases:




          • The support of $M$ is finite. Then $M sim 1L + 0N$.

          • The support of $M$ is infinite. Then $M sim 0L + 1N$.


          Independence: If $L preceq M$ and $p in [0,1]$, there are four cases:





          • $p = 0$: $0L + 1N sim 0M + 1 N$


          • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is finite: $pL + (1-p)N sim L preceq M sim pM + (1-p)N$


          • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is infinite: $pL + (1-p)N sim pM + (1-p)N$


          • $p = 1$: $1L + 0N preceq 1M + 0N$


          So $prec$ satisfies the VNM-axioms. However, there is no utility function $u$ such that $L prec M iff u(L) < u(M)$. To see this, note that $u$ must assign every outcome to some value $f$, since if $L=1x$ and $M=1y$ then



          $$L sim M$$
          $$E[u(L)] = E[u(M)]$$
          $$u(x) = u(y)$$



          For any lottery $N$ with infinite support (which exists since $A$ is infinite), $E[u(N)]$ also equals $f$, since $u$ assigns each outcome in $L$'s support to $f$. So $E[u(L)] = E[u(N)]$. This implies $L sim N$, which is false since $L$'s support is finite and $N$'s support is infinite.



          $Box$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063368%2fdoes-the-von-neumann-morgenstern-utility-theorem-work-for-infinite-outcomes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0












            $begingroup$

            It is not fully clear to me what the question is, but there is a huge literature on versions of the von Neumann and Morgenstern utility representation on infinite sets. The most common approach is to impose a continuity axiom. (Formally, there are different alternatives, f.i. assuming an archimedean property.)



            Among many possible references, I recommend J.-M. Grandmont, "Continuity properties of a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility", Journal of Economic Theory 4, 45-57. Theorem 2 provide simple conditions for existence that elucidate the role of the independence (or linearity) axiom. And Theorem clarifies the difference between assuming a continuous representation or a continuous NM-utility function.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              How does my answer look? math.stackexchange.com/a/3070682/49592
              $endgroup$
              – PyRulez
              2 days ago
















            0












            $begingroup$

            It is not fully clear to me what the question is, but there is a huge literature on versions of the von Neumann and Morgenstern utility representation on infinite sets. The most common approach is to impose a continuity axiom. (Formally, there are different alternatives, f.i. assuming an archimedean property.)



            Among many possible references, I recommend J.-M. Grandmont, "Continuity properties of a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility", Journal of Economic Theory 4, 45-57. Theorem 2 provide simple conditions for existence that elucidate the role of the independence (or linearity) axiom. And Theorem clarifies the difference between assuming a continuous representation or a continuous NM-utility function.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              How does my answer look? math.stackexchange.com/a/3070682/49592
              $endgroup$
              – PyRulez
              2 days ago














            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            It is not fully clear to me what the question is, but there is a huge literature on versions of the von Neumann and Morgenstern utility representation on infinite sets. The most common approach is to impose a continuity axiom. (Formally, there are different alternatives, f.i. assuming an archimedean property.)



            Among many possible references, I recommend J.-M. Grandmont, "Continuity properties of a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility", Journal of Economic Theory 4, 45-57. Theorem 2 provide simple conditions for existence that elucidate the role of the independence (or linearity) axiom. And Theorem clarifies the difference between assuming a continuous representation or a continuous NM-utility function.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            It is not fully clear to me what the question is, but there is a huge literature on versions of the von Neumann and Morgenstern utility representation on infinite sets. The most common approach is to impose a continuity axiom. (Formally, there are different alternatives, f.i. assuming an archimedean property.)



            Among many possible references, I recommend J.-M. Grandmont, "Continuity properties of a von Neumann-Morgenstern utility", Journal of Economic Theory 4, 45-57. Theorem 2 provide simple conditions for existence that elucidate the role of the independence (or linearity) axiom. And Theorem clarifies the difference between assuming a continuous representation or a continuous NM-utility function.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Jan 11 at 2:48









            PyRulez

            4,63622369




            4,63622369










            answered Jan 7 at 17:02









            mlcmlc

            4,87931332




            4,87931332












            • $begingroup$
              How does my answer look? math.stackexchange.com/a/3070682/49592
              $endgroup$
              – PyRulez
              2 days ago


















            • $begingroup$
              How does my answer look? math.stackexchange.com/a/3070682/49592
              $endgroup$
              – PyRulez
              2 days ago
















            $begingroup$
            How does my answer look? math.stackexchange.com/a/3070682/49592
            $endgroup$
            – PyRulez
            2 days ago




            $begingroup$
            How does my answer look? math.stackexchange.com/a/3070682/49592
            $endgroup$
            – PyRulez
            2 days ago











            0












            $begingroup$

            No, it does not hold in the infinite case (as stated). To see this, we will define a VNM-rational $prec$ that does not have a utility function.



            Let $A$ be any infinite set of outcomes. Then for lotteries $L$ and $M$, $L prec M$ iff the support of $L$ is finite and of $M$ is infinite.



            Completeness: We define $L preceq M$ as $M nprec L$. It is clear that $M nprec L$ or $L nprec M$, since otherwise $L prec M$ and $M prec L$, implying $L$ has both finite and infinite support, a contradiction.



            Transitivity: If $L prec M$ and $M prec N$, $L$ has finite support and $N$ has infinite support. Ergo, $L prec N$.



            Continuity: Given $L preceq M preceq N$, then we have two cases:




            • The support of $M$ is finite. Then $M sim 1L + 0N$.

            • The support of $M$ is infinite. Then $M sim 0L + 1N$.


            Independence: If $L preceq M$ and $p in [0,1]$, there are four cases:





            • $p = 0$: $0L + 1N sim 0M + 1 N$


            • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is finite: $pL + (1-p)N sim L preceq M sim pM + (1-p)N$


            • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is infinite: $pL + (1-p)N sim pM + (1-p)N$


            • $p = 1$: $1L + 0N preceq 1M + 0N$


            So $prec$ satisfies the VNM-axioms. However, there is no utility function $u$ such that $L prec M iff u(L) < u(M)$. To see this, note that $u$ must assign every outcome to some value $f$, since if $L=1x$ and $M=1y$ then



            $$L sim M$$
            $$E[u(L)] = E[u(M)]$$
            $$u(x) = u(y)$$



            For any lottery $N$ with infinite support (which exists since $A$ is infinite), $E[u(N)]$ also equals $f$, since $u$ assigns each outcome in $L$'s support to $f$. So $E[u(L)] = E[u(N)]$. This implies $L sim N$, which is false since $L$'s support is finite and $N$'s support is infinite.



            $Box$






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$


















              0












              $begingroup$

              No, it does not hold in the infinite case (as stated). To see this, we will define a VNM-rational $prec$ that does not have a utility function.



              Let $A$ be any infinite set of outcomes. Then for lotteries $L$ and $M$, $L prec M$ iff the support of $L$ is finite and of $M$ is infinite.



              Completeness: We define $L preceq M$ as $M nprec L$. It is clear that $M nprec L$ or $L nprec M$, since otherwise $L prec M$ and $M prec L$, implying $L$ has both finite and infinite support, a contradiction.



              Transitivity: If $L prec M$ and $M prec N$, $L$ has finite support and $N$ has infinite support. Ergo, $L prec N$.



              Continuity: Given $L preceq M preceq N$, then we have two cases:




              • The support of $M$ is finite. Then $M sim 1L + 0N$.

              • The support of $M$ is infinite. Then $M sim 0L + 1N$.


              Independence: If $L preceq M$ and $p in [0,1]$, there are four cases:





              • $p = 0$: $0L + 1N sim 0M + 1 N$


              • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is finite: $pL + (1-p)N sim L preceq M sim pM + (1-p)N$


              • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is infinite: $pL + (1-p)N sim pM + (1-p)N$


              • $p = 1$: $1L + 0N preceq 1M + 0N$


              So $prec$ satisfies the VNM-axioms. However, there is no utility function $u$ such that $L prec M iff u(L) < u(M)$. To see this, note that $u$ must assign every outcome to some value $f$, since if $L=1x$ and $M=1y$ then



              $$L sim M$$
              $$E[u(L)] = E[u(M)]$$
              $$u(x) = u(y)$$



              For any lottery $N$ with infinite support (which exists since $A$ is infinite), $E[u(N)]$ also equals $f$, since $u$ assigns each outcome in $L$'s support to $f$. So $E[u(L)] = E[u(N)]$. This implies $L sim N$, which is false since $L$'s support is finite and $N$'s support is infinite.



              $Box$






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$
















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                No, it does not hold in the infinite case (as stated). To see this, we will define a VNM-rational $prec$ that does not have a utility function.



                Let $A$ be any infinite set of outcomes. Then for lotteries $L$ and $M$, $L prec M$ iff the support of $L$ is finite and of $M$ is infinite.



                Completeness: We define $L preceq M$ as $M nprec L$. It is clear that $M nprec L$ or $L nprec M$, since otherwise $L prec M$ and $M prec L$, implying $L$ has both finite and infinite support, a contradiction.



                Transitivity: If $L prec M$ and $M prec N$, $L$ has finite support and $N$ has infinite support. Ergo, $L prec N$.



                Continuity: Given $L preceq M preceq N$, then we have two cases:




                • The support of $M$ is finite. Then $M sim 1L + 0N$.

                • The support of $M$ is infinite. Then $M sim 0L + 1N$.


                Independence: If $L preceq M$ and $p in [0,1]$, there are four cases:





                • $p = 0$: $0L + 1N sim 0M + 1 N$


                • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is finite: $pL + (1-p)N sim L preceq M sim pM + (1-p)N$


                • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is infinite: $pL + (1-p)N sim pM + (1-p)N$


                • $p = 1$: $1L + 0N preceq 1M + 0N$


                So $prec$ satisfies the VNM-axioms. However, there is no utility function $u$ such that $L prec M iff u(L) < u(M)$. To see this, note that $u$ must assign every outcome to some value $f$, since if $L=1x$ and $M=1y$ then



                $$L sim M$$
                $$E[u(L)] = E[u(M)]$$
                $$u(x) = u(y)$$



                For any lottery $N$ with infinite support (which exists since $A$ is infinite), $E[u(N)]$ also equals $f$, since $u$ assigns each outcome in $L$'s support to $f$. So $E[u(L)] = E[u(N)]$. This implies $L sim N$, which is false since $L$'s support is finite and $N$'s support is infinite.



                $Box$






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                No, it does not hold in the infinite case (as stated). To see this, we will define a VNM-rational $prec$ that does not have a utility function.



                Let $A$ be any infinite set of outcomes. Then for lotteries $L$ and $M$, $L prec M$ iff the support of $L$ is finite and of $M$ is infinite.



                Completeness: We define $L preceq M$ as $M nprec L$. It is clear that $M nprec L$ or $L nprec M$, since otherwise $L prec M$ and $M prec L$, implying $L$ has both finite and infinite support, a contradiction.



                Transitivity: If $L prec M$ and $M prec N$, $L$ has finite support and $N$ has infinite support. Ergo, $L prec N$.



                Continuity: Given $L preceq M preceq N$, then we have two cases:




                • The support of $M$ is finite. Then $M sim 1L + 0N$.

                • The support of $M$ is infinite. Then $M sim 0L + 1N$.


                Independence: If $L preceq M$ and $p in [0,1]$, there are four cases:





                • $p = 0$: $0L + 1N sim 0M + 1 N$


                • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is finite: $pL + (1-p)N sim L preceq M sim pM + (1-p)N$


                • $0 < p < 1$ and the support of $N$ is infinite: $pL + (1-p)N sim pM + (1-p)N$


                • $p = 1$: $1L + 0N preceq 1M + 0N$


                So $prec$ satisfies the VNM-axioms. However, there is no utility function $u$ such that $L prec M iff u(L) < u(M)$. To see this, note that $u$ must assign every outcome to some value $f$, since if $L=1x$ and $M=1y$ then



                $$L sim M$$
                $$E[u(L)] = E[u(M)]$$
                $$u(x) = u(y)$$



                For any lottery $N$ with infinite support (which exists since $A$ is infinite), $E[u(N)]$ also equals $f$, since $u$ assigns each outcome in $L$'s support to $f$. So $E[u(L)] = E[u(N)]$. This implies $L sim N$, which is false since $L$'s support is finite and $N$'s support is infinite.



                $Box$







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 2 days ago

























                answered 2 days ago









                PyRulezPyRulez

                4,63622369




                4,63622369






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3063368%2fdoes-the-von-neumann-morgenstern-utility-theorem-work-for-infinite-outcomes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    An IMO inspired problem

                    Management

                    Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?