Additive representation of separable preferences over infinite products
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let X be a set of states, and let I be an infinite indexing set. Our first main result states that any separable, permutation-invariant preference order (>) on X^I admits an additive representation. That is: there exists a linearly ordered abelian group A and a `utility function' u:X-->A such that, for any x,y in X^I which differ in only finitely many coordinates, we have x>y if and only if the sum of [u(x_i)-u(y_i)] over all i in I is positive. Our second result states: If (>) also satisfies a weak continuity condition, then, for any x,y in X^I, we have x>y if and only if the `hypersum' of [u(x_i)-u(y_i)] over all i in I is positive. The `hypersum' is an infinite summation operator defined using methods from nonstandard analysis. Like an integration operator or series summation operator, it allows us to define the sum of an infinite set of values. However, unlike these operations, the hypersum does not depend on some form of convergence (recall: A has no topology) ---it is always well-defined. Also, unlike an integral, the hypersum does not depend upon a sigma-algebra or measure on the indexing set I. The hypersum takes values in a linearly ordered abelian group A*, which is an ultrapower extension of A. These results are applicable to infinite-horizon intertemporal choice, choice under uncertainty, and variable-population social choice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it