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.

So, the problem is actually from a microeconomics class. The problem is this:

If preferences are represented by a utility function $u(x,y)=xy$, show that these preferences are convex.

Now in case you don't know, in economics, "convex preferences" means preferences such that the set of preferences that are at least as preferred to some bundle is convex. So basically what this means is I need to show this:

Let $0\le t\le 1$

if $u(x_1,y_1)=u(x_2,y_2)$, then $u(tx_1+(1-t)x_2,ty_1+(1-t)y_2)\ge u(x_1,y_1)$.

so $x_1y_1\le (tx_1+(1-t)x_2)(ty_1+(1-t)y_2)$.

Now, I have tried expanding this out and factoring all kinds of different ways, and I feel like I'm not getting anywhere. Am I going about this incorrectly by trying to expand this? Is there some simpler way? If anyone could give me some kind of hint that would be amazing.

Thanks!

share|improve this question
    
Are you sure that the inequality is in that direction? A convex function is usually defined as $$f(tx+(1-t)y)\le tf(x)+(1-t)f(y)$$ for $0\le t\le1$. –  robjohn Oct 12 '11 at 6:20
    
@robjohn, Colin asks that the sets $\{u\geqslant h\}$ are convex for every $h$ (that is, yes, that the function $u$ is concave). –  Did Oct 12 '11 at 6:27
    
@Didier: Thanks, that makes sense. –  robjohn Oct 12 '11 at 6:50
    
The implication "it has sets $\Rightarrow$ [elementary-set-theory] or [set-theory] fits as tags" is incorrect. I removed the unneeded tag. :-) –  Asaf Karagila Oct 12 '11 at 7:13
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Since $x_1y_1=x_2y_2$, what you want to prove is equivalent to $$tx_1y_1+(1-t)x_2y_2\leqslant(tx_1+(1-t)x_2)(ty_1+(1-t)y_2). $$ Expanding the RHS, one sees that the RHS minus the LHS is $$t(1-t)(x_1y_2+x_2y_1-x_1y_1-x_2y_2)=t(1-t)(x_1-x_2)(y_2-y_1). $$ Using $x_1y_1=x_2y_2$ once again, you know that $x_1>x_2$ implies $y_1<y_2$ and that $x_1<x_2$ implies $y_1>y_2$ hence the last product is always nonnegative. Done.

share|improve this answer
    
Holy moly. I thought about trying to use the fact that $$x_1 y_1 = x_1 y_1$$ but it never occurred to me to do it the way that you did. How did you even think of that? Anyway, thank you very much for your help, I've got it. –  crf Oct 12 '11 at 7:32
    
Not enough time to elaborate just now but the answer is: symmetry. –  Did Oct 12 '11 at 7:36
add comment

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.