Difference between revisions of "Scholarly Misconduct"
(Created page with "==Naked Exclusion== I should write up the Whinston footnote. ==Mean-Preserving Spread== I should write up the Southern Methodist University plagiarism.") |
(→Mean-Preserving Spread) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Mean-Preserving Spread== | ==Mean-Preserving Spread== | ||
I should write up the Southern Methodist University plagiarism. | I should write up the Southern Methodist University plagiarism. | ||
| + | |||
| + | "Defining the Mean-Preserving Spread: 3-pt versus 4-pt," ''Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty: New Models and Empirical Findings'' , edited by John Geweke. Amsterdam: Kluwer, 1992 (with Emmanuel Petrakis ). The standard way to define a mean-preserving spread is in terms of changes in the probability at four points of a distribution (Rothschild and Stiglitz [1970]). Our alternative definition is in terms of changes in the probability at just three points. Any 4-pt mean- preserving spread can be constructed from two 3-pt mean-preserving spreads, and any 3-pt mean-preserving spread can be constructed from two 4-pt mean- preserving spreads. The 3-pt definition is simpler and more often applicable. It also permits easy rectification of a mistake in the Rothschild-Stiglitz proof that adding a mean- preserving spread is equivalent to other measures of increasing risk. pdf (http://rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen_92BOOK.mps.pdf | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is rumored that Rothschild and Stiglitz both took a course on Hardy-Littlewood-Polya. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Someone said: "Advanced results with elementary mean-preserving spreads are in | ||
| + | Chew, Soo Hong & Mei-Hui Mao (1995) “A Schur-Concave Characterization of Risk Aversion for Non-Expected Utility Preferences,” Journal of Economic Theory 67, 402–435. | ||
| + | Chew’s proofs are always sloppy, but his results are usually right modulo some small details of continuity." | ||
| + | |||
| + | I need to write up the long history of this paper, including the posters at UCLA nad the prize of co-authorship, and the Macao email about the Israelis in JET, and the Rothschild email. | ||
Latest revision as of 05:26, 4 May 2021
Naked Exclusion
I should write up the Whinston footnote.
Mean-Preserving Spread
I should write up the Southern Methodist University plagiarism.
"Defining the Mean-Preserving Spread: 3-pt versus 4-pt," Decision Making Under Risk and Uncertainty: New Models and Empirical Findings , edited by John Geweke. Amsterdam: Kluwer, 1992 (with Emmanuel Petrakis ). The standard way to define a mean-preserving spread is in terms of changes in the probability at four points of a distribution (Rothschild and Stiglitz [1970]). Our alternative definition is in terms of changes in the probability at just three points. Any 4-pt mean- preserving spread can be constructed from two 3-pt mean-preserving spreads, and any 3-pt mean-preserving spread can be constructed from two 4-pt mean- preserving spreads. The 3-pt definition is simpler and more often applicable. It also permits easy rectification of a mistake in the Rothschild-Stiglitz proof that adding a mean- preserving spread is equivalent to other measures of increasing risk. pdf (http://rasmusen.org/published/Rasmusen_92BOOK.mps.pdf
It is rumored that Rothschild and Stiglitz both took a course on Hardy-Littlewood-Polya.
Someone said: "Advanced results with elementary mean-preserving spreads are in Chew, Soo Hong & Mei-Hui Mao (1995) “A Schur-Concave Characterization of Risk Aversion for Non-Expected Utility Preferences,” Journal of Economic Theory 67, 402–435. Chew’s proofs are always sloppy, but his results are usually right modulo some small details of continuity."
I need to write up the long history of this paper, including the posters at UCLA nad the prize of co-authorship, and the Macao email about the Israelis in JET, and the Rothschild email.
