Continuous Preference Upper Lower Contour Equivalent

In mathematics, contour sets generalize and formalize the everyday notions of

• everything superior to something
• everything superior or equivalent to something
• everything inferior to something
• everything inferior or equivalent to something.

Formal definitions [edit]

Given a relation on pairs of elements of set ${\displaystyle X}$

${\displaystyle \succcurlyeq ~\subseteq ~X^{2}}$

and an element ${\displaystyle x}$ of ${\displaystyle X}$

${\displaystyle x\in X}$

The upper contour set of ${\displaystyle x}$ is the set of all ${\displaystyle y}$ that are related to ${\displaystyle x}$ :

${\displaystyle \left\{y~\backepsilon ~y\succcurlyeq x\right\}}$

The lower contour set of ${\displaystyle x}$ is the set of all ${\displaystyle y}$ such that ${\displaystyle x}$ is related to them:

${\displaystyle \left\{y~\backepsilon ~x\succcurlyeq y\right\}}$

The strict upper contour set of ${\displaystyle x}$ is the set of all ${\displaystyle y}$ that are related to ${\displaystyle x}$ without ${\displaystyle x}$ being in this way related to any of them:

${\displaystyle \left\{y~\backepsilon ~(y\succcurlyeq x)\land \lnot (x\succcurlyeq y)\right\}}$

The strict lower contour set of ${\displaystyle x}$ is the set of all ${\displaystyle y}$ such that ${\displaystyle x}$ is related to them without any of them being in this way related to ${\displaystyle x}$ :

${\displaystyle \left\{y~\backepsilon ~(x\succcurlyeq y)\land \lnot (y\succcurlyeq x)\right\}}$

The formal expressions of the last two may be simplified if we have defined

${\displaystyle \succ ~=~\left\{\left(a,b\right)~\backepsilon ~\left(a\succcurlyeq b\right)\land \lnot (b\succcurlyeq a)\right\}}$

so that ${\displaystyle a}$ is related to ${\displaystyle b}$ but ${\displaystyle b}$ is not related to ${\displaystyle a}$ , in which case the strict upper contour set of ${\displaystyle x}$ is

${\displaystyle \left\{y~\backepsilon ~y\succ x\right\}}$

and the strict lower contour set of ${\displaystyle x}$ is

${\displaystyle \left\{y~\backepsilon ~x\succ y\right\}}$

Contour sets of a function [edit]

In the case of a function ${\displaystyle f()}$ considered in terms of relation ${\displaystyle \triangleright }$ , reference to the contour sets of the function is implicitly to the contour sets of the implied relation

${\displaystyle (a\succcurlyeq b)~\Leftarrow ~[f(a)\triangleright f(b)]}$

Examples [edit]

Arithmetic [edit]

Consider a real number ${\displaystyle x}$ , and the relation ${\displaystyle \geq }$ . Then

Consider, more generally, the relation

${\displaystyle (a\succcurlyeq b)~\Leftarrow ~[f(a)\geq f(b)]}$

Then

It would be technically possible to define contour sets in terms of the relation

${\displaystyle (a\succcurlyeq b)~\Leftarrow ~[f(a)\leq f(b)]}$

though such definitions would tend to confound ready understanding.

In the case of a real-valued function ${\displaystyle f()}$ (whose arguments might or might not be themselves real numbers), reference to the contour sets of the function is implicitly to the contour sets of the relation

${\displaystyle (a\succcurlyeq b)~\Leftarrow ~[f(a)\geq f(b)]}$

Note that the arguments to ${\displaystyle f()}$ might be vectors, and that the notation used might instead be

${\displaystyle [(a_{1},a_{2},\ldots )\succcurlyeq (b_{1},b_{2},\ldots )]~\Leftarrow ~[f(a_{1},a_{2},\ldots )\geq f(b_{1},b_{2},\ldots )]}$

Economics [edit]

In economics, the set ${\displaystyle X}$ could be interpreted as a set of goods and services or of possible outcomes, the relation ${\displaystyle \succ }$ as strict preference, and the relationship ${\displaystyle \succcurlyeq }$ as weak preference. Then

• the upper contour set, or better set,^[1] of ${\displaystyle x}$ would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were at least as desired as ${\displaystyle x}$ ,
• the strict upper contour set of ${\displaystyle x}$ would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were more desired than ${\displaystyle x}$ ,
• the lower contour set, or worse set,^[1] of ${\displaystyle x}$ would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were no more desired than ${\displaystyle x}$ , and
• the strict lower contour set of ${\displaystyle x}$ would be the set of all goods, services, or outcomes that were less desired than ${\displaystyle x}$ .

Such preferences might be captured by a utility function ${\displaystyle u()}$ , in which case

Complementarity [edit]

On the assumption that ${\displaystyle \succcurlyeq }$ is a total ordering of ${\displaystyle X}$ , the complement of the upper contour set is the strict lower contour set.

${\displaystyle X^{2}\backslash \left\{y~\backepsilon ~y\succcurlyeq x\right\}=\left\{y~\backepsilon ~x\succ y\right\}}$

${\displaystyle X^{2}\backslash \left\{y~\backepsilon ~x\succ y\right\}=\left\{y~\backepsilon ~y\succcurlyeq x\right\}}$

and the complement of the strict upper contour set is the lower contour set.

${\displaystyle X^{2}\backslash \left\{y~\backepsilon ~y\succ x\right\}=\left\{y~\backepsilon ~x\succcurlyeq y\right\}}$

${\displaystyle X^{2}\backslash \left\{y~\backepsilon ~x\succcurlyeq y\right\}=\left\{y~\backepsilon ~y\succ x\right\}}$

See also [edit]

• Epigraph
• Hypograph

References [edit]

1. ^ ^{a b} Robert P. Gilles (1996). Economic Exchange and Social Organization: The Edgeworthian Foundations of General Equilibrium Theory. Springer. p. 35. ISBN9780792342007.

Bibliography [edit]

• Andreu Mas-Colell, Michael D. Whinston, and Jerry R. Green, Microeconomic Theory (LCC HB172.M6247 1995), p43. ISBN 0-19-507340-1 (cloth) ISBN 0-19-510268-1 (paper)

iredalelogy1996.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contour_set

Share this post