The two-agent claims-truncated proportional rule has no consistent extension: a constructive proof

DOI10.1016/j.econlet.2007.04.022zbMath1255.91193OpenAlexW2069571844WikidataQ59972761 ScholiaQ59972761MaRDI QIDQ1934669

William Thomson

Publication date: 29 January 2013

Published in: Economics Letters (Search for Journal in Brave)

Full work available at URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.04.022

zbMATH Keywords

consistencyconsistent extensionconflicting claimsdivision rulesclaims-truncated proportional rule

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Resource and cost allocation (including fair division, apportionment, etc.) (91B32) Decision theory for games (91A35)

Related Items (7)

Consistent cost sharing ⋮ Random conjugates of bankruptcy rules ⋮ Equal Area Rule to Adjudicate Conflicting Claims ⋮ A characterization of a family of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims ⋮ Compromising between the proportional and equal division values ⋮ Two families of rules for the adjudication of conflicting claims ⋮ Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: an update

Cites Work

• On properties of division rules lifted by bilateral consistency
• Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud
• A problem of rights arbitration from the Talmud
• Bilateral comparisons and consistent fair division rules in the context of bankruptcy problems
• Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey.
• Claims problems and weighted generalizations of the Talmud rule
• The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems.
• On Dividing an Amount According to Individual Claims or Liabilities
• A quadratic programming model for product configuration optimization
• Priority Rules and Other Asymmetric Rationing Methods

This page was built for publication: The two-agent claims-truncated proportional rule has no consistent extension: a constructive proof