Can a preference relation be complete but not transitive?

  • Thread starter Thread starter slakedlime
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complete Relation
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concepts of completeness and transitivity in preference relations within microeconomics. It is established that a set of preferences can be transitive yet incomplete, as illustrated by the example set X = {a, b, c, d}, where certain elements remain incomparable. The inquiry focuses on whether a preference set can be complete but intransitive, questioning if defining relationships among all elements inherently ensures transitivity. The conclusion reached is that the original poster has resolved their confusion regarding the topic. Understanding these axioms is crucial for analyzing preference relations in economic theory.
slakedlime
Messages
74
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


This is not a homework problem, but a topic in a microeconomics book that I am unclear about.

My book argues that the set X = {a, b, c, d} of preferences can be (i) transitive but (ii) incomplete.

Is it possible for a similar set of preferences to be (i) complete but (ii) intransitive, depending on how we define the relations between the elements? My book does not go into this, but I am curious, and any explanation would be much appreciated.

Homework Equations



(i) Completeness axiom: For every pair x, y \in X, either x is weakly preferred to y, y is weakly preferred to x, or both (that is, we are indifferent between x and y).

(ii) Transitivity axiom: For every triple x, y, z \in X, if x is weakly preferred to y and y is weakly preferred to z, then x is weakly preferred to z.

The Attempt at a Solution



I understand that the set X = {a, b, c, d} can be transitive but incomplete. My book explains this with a table (picture attached; my book says that this is only one way of proving that the set X can be transitive but incomplete, and that there are many other ways); the incompleteness arises because we have not defined a relationship between c and d, making them incomparable.

However, the set is transitive because (i) a is weakly preferred to b, and b is weakly preferred to c; (ii) a is weakly preferred to b, and b is weakly preferred to d; (iii) a is weakly preferred to c and a is also weakly preferred to d.

I don't understand how it is possible for a set to be complete but intransitive. If we have defined relationships between all the elements such that any two pairs are comparable, doesn't transitivity automatically follow? Is my understanding correct?
 

Attachments

  • trans.png
    trans.png
    9.6 KB · Views: 889
Physics news on Phys.org
No worries, I have figured this problem out. Please close this thread.
 
No such thing as prefer or not, doesn't matter.
 
no worries no matter what
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K