Topological social choice: A rejoinder (Q908828): Difference between revisions

\textit{N. Baigent} and \textit{P. Huang} [ibid. 2, No.2, 141-146 (1990; Zbl 0693.90011)], hereafter BH, provide a critical appraisal of a recent paper of the authors [ibid. 7, No.2, 131-140 (1990; Zbl 0693.90010)] and, more generally, of the topological approach to social choice initiated by Chichilnisky. Instead of being controversial, the purpose of the following lines is to clarify the message of our paper. First of all, it should be clear that we do not reject the Chichilnisky approach. In many instances, not only the mathematical ones, the approach is deep and rich. Our purpose was just to examine the limits of the exercise and the sensitivity of the Chichilnisky impossibility theorem with respect to some basic ingredients dealing with the modelling of preferences and the axiomatization.