Economics at your fingertips  

Comment on Ellsberg's two-color experiment, portfolio inertia and ambiguity

Youichiro Higashi, Sujoy Mukerji (), Norio Takeoka and Jean-Marc Tallon ()
Additional contact information
Youichiro Higashi: Department of economics - University of Rochester [USA]
Norio Takeoka: Department of economics - University of Rochester [USA]

Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) from HAL

Abstract: The final step in the proof of Proposition 1 (p.311) of Mukerji and Tallon (2003) may not hold in generalbecause $\varepsilon>0$ in the proof cannot be chosen independently of $w,z$. We point out by a counterexample that the axioms they impose are too weak for Proposition 1. We introduce a modified set of axioms and re-establish the proposition

Keywords: ambiguity; bid ask spread; Ellsberg paradox (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2008-09
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server:
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2) Track citations by RSS feed

Published in International Journal of Economic Theory, Wiley, 2008, 4 (3), pp.433-444. ⟨10.1111/j.1742-7363.2008.00087.x⟩

Downloads: (external link) (application/pdf)

Related works:
Journal Article: Comment on “Ellsberg's two‐color experiment, portfolio inertia and ambiguity” (2008) Downloads
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link:

DOI: 10.1111/j.1742-7363.2008.00087.x

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().

Page updated 2020-01-25
Handle: RePEc:hal:cesptp:halshs-00175266