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

DOI10.1016/j.econlet.2007.04.022zbMath1255.91193WikidataQ59972761 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

consistency; consistent extension; conflicting claims; division rules; claims-truncated proportional rule

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

91B32: Resource and cost allocation (including fair division, apportionment, etc.)

91A35: Decision theory for games

Related Items

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

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