Skip to main content
Log in

Unique nontransitive additive conjoint measurement on finite sets

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nontransitive additive conjoint measurement for a binary relation>on a setX 1 ×X 2 ×...×X n ofn-tuples(x 1,...,x n ), (y 1,...,y n ),... is concerned with the representation

$$(x_1 ,...,x_n ) > (y_1 ,...,y_n ) \Leftrightarrow \sum\limits_{i = 1}^n {\phi _i (x_i ,y_i ) > 0,} $$

whereφ φ is a skew symmetric real valued function onX i ×X i . The representation is said to be unique if, whenever (φ 1,...φ n ) and (φ 1 ,...φ n ) satisfy it, there is a positive constant λ such thatφ i =λφ i for alli. This paper investigates unique representation for nontransitive additive conjoint measurement when everyX i is finite. It begins with background on measurement theory, followed by conditions for uniqueness that are based on equations ∑φ i (x i ,y i )=0 that correspond to the symmetric complement of >. We then examine aspects of sets of unique solutions forn=2, for arbitraryn with |X i |=2 for alli, and forn=3. Various combinatorial and number-theoretic arguments are used to derive results that count and characterize sets of unique solutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R.L. Davis, The number of structures of finite relations, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 4(1953)486–495.

    Google Scholar 

  2. G. Debreu, Topological methods in cardinal utility theory, in:Mathematical Methods in the Social Sciences, 1959, ed. K.J. Arrow, S. Karlin and P. Suppes (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1960) pp. 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. P.C. Fishburn,Utility Theory for Decision Making (Wiley, New York, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  4. P.C. Fishburn,Nonlinear Preference and Utility Theory (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  5. P.C. Fishburn, Nontransitive additive conjoint measurement (AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  6. P.C. Fishburn, Unique nontransitive measurement on finite sets, Theory and Decision (in press).

  7. P.C. Fishburn and I.H. LaValle, Context-dependent choice with nonlinear and nontransitive preferences, Econom. 56(1988)1221–1239.

    Google Scholar 

  8. P.C. Fishburn, H. Marcus-Roberts and F.S. Roberts, Unique finite difference measurement, SIAM J. Discr. Math. 1(1988)334–354.

    Google Scholar 

  9. P.C. Fishburn and A.M. Odlyzko, Unique subjective probability on finite sets, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc. 4(1989)1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P.C. Fishburn and F.S. Roberts, Axioms for unique subjective probability on finite sets, J. Math. Psychol. 33(1989)117–130.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P.C. Fishburn and F.S. Roberts, Unique finite conjoint measurement, Math. Soc. Sci. 16(1988)107–143.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.C. Fishburn and F.S. Roberts, Uniqueness in finite measurement, in:Applications of Combinatorics and Graph Theory in the Biological and Social Sciences, ed. F.S. Roberts (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989), pp. 103–137.

    Google Scholar 

  13. P.C. Fishburn, F.S. Roberts and H. Marcus-Roberts, Van Lier sequences. Disct. Appl. Math., in press.

  14. M.M. Flood, A preference experiment, RAND Corporation Papers P-256, P-258 and P-263, Santa Monica, CA (1951–1952).

  15. F. Harary, The number of oriented graphs, Michigan Math. J. 4(1957)221–224.

    Google Scholar 

  16. V.E. Hoggatt, Jr.,Fibonacci and Lucas Numbers (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  17. D.H. Krantz, Conjoint measurement: The Luce-Tukey axiomization and some extensions, J. Math. Psychol. 1(1964)248–277.

    Google Scholar 

  18. D.H. Krantz, R.D. Luce, P. Suppes and A. Tversky,Foundations of Measurement, Vol. 1 (Academic Press, New York, 1971).

    Google Scholar 

  19. K.R. MacCrimmon and S. Larsson, Utility theory: Axioms versus “paradoxes”, in:Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox, ed. M. Allais and O. Hagen (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1979) pp. 333–409.

    Google Scholar 

  20. K.O. May, Intransitivity, utility, and the aggregation of preference patterns, Econom. 22(1954)1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J.W. Moon,Topics on Tournaments (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  22. F.S. Roberts,Measurement Theory with Applications to Decision making, Utility, and the Social Sciences (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  23. D. Scott, Measurement models and linear inequalities, J. Math. Psychol. 1(1964)233–247.

    Google Scholar 

  24. D. Scott and P. Suppes, Foundational aspects of theories of measurement, J. Symbolic Logic 23(1958) 113–128.

    Google Scholar 

  25. A. Tversky, Intransitivity of preferences, Psychol. Rev. 76(1969)31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  26. L. Van Lier, A simple sufficient condition for the unique representability of a finite qualitative probability by a probability measure, J. Math. Psychol. 33(1989)91–98.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fishburn, P.C. Unique nontransitive additive conjoint measurement on finite sets. Ann Oper Res 23, 213–234 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02204847

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02204847

Keywords

Navigation