Using Theorema in the Formalization of Theoretical Economics

  • Manfred Kerber
  • Colin Rowat
  • Wolfgang Windsteiger
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6824)

Abstract

Theoretical economics makes use of strict mathematical methods. For instance, games as introduced by von Neumann and Morgenstern allow for formal mathematical proofs for certain axiomatized economical situations. Such proofs can—at least in principle—also be carried through in formal systems such as Theorema. In this paper we describe experiments carried through using the Theorema system to prove theorems about a particular form of games called pillage games. Each pillage game formalizes a particular understanding of power. Analysis then attempts to derive the properties of solution sets (in particular, the core and stable set), asking about existence, uniqueness and characterization.

Concretely we use Theorema to show properties previously proved on paper by two of the co-authors for pillage games with three agents. Of particular interest is some pseudo-code which summarizes the results previously shown. Since the computation involves infinite sets the pseudo-code is in several ways non-computational. However, in the presence of appropriate lemmas, the pseudo-code has sufficient computational content that Theorema can compute stable sets (which are always finite). We have concretely demonstrated this for three different important power functions.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Buchberger, B., Dupre, C., Jebelean, T., Kriftner, F., Nakagawa, K., Vasaru, D., Windsteiger, W.: The Theorema Project: A Progress Report. In: Kerber, M., Kohlhase, M. (eds.) Proceedings of CALCULEMUS 2000, Symposium on the Integration of Symbolic Computation and Mechanized Reasoning, pp. 98–113. A.K. Peters, Natick (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buchberger, B., Craciun, A., Jebelean, T., Kovacs, L., Kutsia, T., Nakagawa, K., Piroi, F., Popov, N., Robu, J., Rosenkranz, M., Windsteiger, W.: Theorema: Towards Computer-Aided Mathematical Theory Exploration. Journal of Applied Logic 4(4), 470–504 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buchberger, B.: Theory Exploration Versus Theorem Proving. In: Proceedings of the Calculemus 1999 Workshop. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, vol. 23(3). Elsevier, Amsterdam (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Clippel, G., Serrano, R.: Bargaining, coalitions and externalities: A comment on Maskin, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1304712
  5. 5.
    Deng, X., Papadimitriou, C.H.: On the complexity of cooperative solution concepts. Mathematics of Operations Research 19(2), 257–266 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grandi, U., Endriss, U.: First-Order Logic Formalisation of Arrow’s Theorem. In: He, X., Horty, J., Pacuit, E. (eds.) LORI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5834, pp. 133–146. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ireland, A., Bundy, A.: Productive Use of Failure in Inductive Proof. Journal of Automated Reasoning 16(1), 79–111 (1995)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jordan, J.S.: Pillage and property. Journal of Economic Theory 131(1), 26–44 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jordan, J.S., Obadia, D.: Stable Sets in Majority Pillage Games, mimeo (November 2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kerber, M., Rowat, C.: Stable Sets in Three Agent Pillage Games, Department of Economics Discussion Paper, University of Birmingham, 09-07 (June 2009), http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1429326
  11. 11.
    Lakatos, I.: Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1976)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lucas, W.F.: A game with no solution. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 74(2), 237–239 (1968)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maskin, E.: Bargaining, Coalitions and Externalities. mimeo (June 2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    McKelvey, R.D., McLennan, A.M., Turocy, T.L.: Gambit: Software Tools for Game Theory, Version 0.2010.09.01. mimeo (2010), http://www.gambit-project.org
  15. 15.
    Nipkow, T.: Social Choice Theory in HOL: Arrow and Gibbard-Satterthwaite. Journal of Automated Reasoning 43, 289–304 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vestergaard, R., Lescanne, P., Ono, H.: The Inductive and Modal Proof Theory of Aumann’s Theorem on Rationality. mimeo (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    von Neumann, J., Morgenstern, O.: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, 1st edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1944)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiedijk, F.: Formalizing Arrow’s Theorem. Sādhanā 34(1), 193–220 (2009)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Windsteiger, W., Buchberger, B., Rosenkranz, M.: Theorema. In: Wiedijk, F. (ed.) The Seventeen Provers of the World. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3600, pp. 96–107. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Windsteiger, W.: An Automated Prover for Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory in Theorema. JSC 41(3-4), 435–470 (2006)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Kerber
    • 1
  • Colin Rowat
    • 2
  • Wolfgang Windsteiger
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer ScienceUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamEngland
  2. 2.EconomicsUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamEngland
  3. 3.RISC JKU LinzHagenbergAustria

Personalised recommendations