[EM] Comments on Heitzig's utility essay

[Warren Smith]

I have no probem with (Archi).

> Heitzig: Archi violation can easily happen when, e.g., 
>   a = your only child is shot dead,
>   b = you receive 1 cent,
>   c = nothing happens.
>If (Archi) would be true, there would have to be a lottery in which
> your child is shot dead with some positive probability  p,  in which you
> receive 1 cent otherwise, and which lottery you prefer to nothing
> happening.  (Heitzig opines Archi is not true for him & tational people.)

--WDS: Au contraire:
Archi in the child/cent example is valid for any rational human being with p = 10^(-20).

In particular, it is also valid for Heitzig being the human.
Disagree?  Ok, I'll prove you are lying!

First proof.
Do you, or do you not, take your child on a car trip, and do you, or do you not,
drive at <20 Km/hour the entire trip while festooning your car with 
flashing lights and constantly sounding your horn?
Q.E.D.

Second proof.  Have you, or have you not, erected a meteor shield over your house?
Q.E.D.

I would have more of a problem with (Tot), if I had a problem (which I don't).

> Heitzig 3.5:  Deriving "social utility = mean individual utility"

--WDS: I don't understand Heitzig's "derivation" here.  I.e. I do not see
why "MonT" is the same thing as  "social utility = mean individual utility".

What if Social Utility = (sum of individual utilities)^3 ?

--WDS: I have considered these issues too.
I direct your attention to puzzles #36, 37, 38, 39, 44 here
  http://rangevoting.org/PuzzlePage.html
for some of my thoughts.

-- 
Warren D. Smith
http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step)
and
math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html