Neat, but this looks equivalent to Harsanyi to me.
Harsanyi’s theorem concerns a “social welfare function” that society is supposed to maximize. The present theorem makes no such assumption.
Well, instead it concerns an “individual welfare function” that an individual is supposed to maximize, and the individual is assumed to be composed of VNM-rational subindividuals. Sure, it’s a different flavor, but is there anything else different?
It only assumes the VNM-rational subindividuals, and derives the existence of the overall welfare function.
I didn’t notice until reading your comment that your theorem gives an answer to the question of why the aggregation should be VNM-rational.
Current theme: default
Less Wrong (text)
Less Wrong (link)
Arrow keys: Next/previous image
Escape or click: Hide zoomed image
Space bar: Reset image size & position
Scroll to zoom in/out
(When zoomed in, drag to pan; double-click to close)
Keys shown in yellow (e.g., ]) are accesskeys, and require a browser-specific modifier key (or keys).
]
Keys shown in grey (e.g., ?) do not require any modifier keys.
?
Esc
h
f
a
m
v
c
r
q
t
u
o
,
.
/
s
n
e
;
Enter
[
\
k
i
l
=
-
0
′
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
→
↓
←
↑
Space
x
z
`
g
Harsanyi’s theorem concerns a “social welfare function” that society is supposed to maximize. The present theorem makes no such assumption.
Well, instead it concerns an “individual welfare function” that an individual is supposed to maximize, and the individual is assumed to be composed of VNM-rational subindividuals. Sure, it’s a different flavor, but is there anything else different?
It only assumes the VNM-rational subindividuals, and derives the existence of the overall welfare function.
I didn’t notice until reading your comment that your theorem gives an answer to the question of why the aggregation should be VNM-rational.