brojesus111
- 38
- 0
Homework Statement
A boyfriend (B) and girlfriend (G) are going to rent an apartment. They have narrowed the offer to between $300,000 and $400,000. Their respective ordinal payoff functions for the amount spent are:
u_B(x)= -2x+7 when 3 <= x <= 3.5 and 0 when 3.5 <= x <= 4
u_G(x)= 0 when 3 <= x <= 3.5 and 3x-10.5 when 3.5 <= x <= 4
a) The following optimization problem will give the best compromise solution:
min { max { | u_B(x) - u*_B| , | u_G(x)-u*_G| } }
subject to 3.5 <= x <= 4
where u*_B and u*_G are the best possible payoff for the boyfriend and girlfriend respectively. Will this point ever be Pareto efficient? Explain.
The Attempt at a Solution
a) I realize that u*_B and u*_G are fixed numbers and that we are only considering the interval between 3.5 and 4. Our professor has given us the hint that the above statement can be simplified to max(1, 12 - 3x).
I don't understand why the term |u_B(x)-u*_B| is a constant 1. From 3.5 to 4, u_B(x) is 0. How do we get 1 from |0 - u*_B|? I'm also not sure where 12 - 3x comes from. From 3.5 to 4 u_G(x) is 3x - 10.5, so we have |3x - 10.5 - u*_G|.
In regards to Pareto efficient, I know that it has to do with the idea that it is impossible to increase one of the payoffs without hurting the other decision maker's payoff. I guess if one of the terms is constant, then this point will be Pareto efficient.
Any help is appreciated. Thank you.