I believe a set of smaller offers would imply the existence of a statement which aggregates them and violates this formalization of the anti-mugging axiom.
I take the aggregating thing as a constructive proof that that class of priors + utility function is vulnerable; your version just seems to put it another way. We agree on that part, I think.
I take the aggregating thing as a constructive proof that that class of priors + utility function is vulnerable; your version just seems to put it another way. We agree on that part, I think.