Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

By definition, an imputation is a vector $\alpha \in \Re^n$ such that

(1) $~ \alpha_i \ge v(i)~~~\forall i \in N $
(2) $ \sum_{i \in N} \alpha_i = v(N) $

where N is the coalition with all the players. Besides we can prove that an imputation $\alpha$ belongs to the core iff

(3) $ \sum_{i \in S} \alpha_i \ge v(S) ~~~ \forall S \ne N $

Now, the demostration of the Bondareva-Shapley theorem starts by noticing that the core is not empty if the result of the optimization problem

$\min_{\alpha} \sum_{i \in N} \alpha_i$
subject to (3)

is less or equal than $v(N)$.

My question is: if, for every imputation, (2) must hold, how can the result of the optimization problem be different than $v(N)$?

Sorry if the question is trivial but I'm studying these things for the first time.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Let $N=\{A,B\}$, $v(N)=3$, $v(A)=v(B)=1$. Now $$\min_{(\alpha_A,\alpha_B)} \alpha_A+\alpha_B$$ subject to $\alpha_A\geq v(A)$ and $\alpha_B\geq v(B)$ gives you $2<3=v(N)$.

Note that the minimization problem is over all vectors, not just imputations.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.