This material has been published in Social Choice and Welfare 16, 337-346, the only definitive repository of the content that has been certified and accepted after peer review. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by Springer-Verlag. Copyright (C) 1999 by Springer-Verlag, Inc.).
Springer-Verlag publishes electronically in LINK at http://link.springer.de/
Arbitrage and Global Cones; Another Counterexample Paulo K. Monteiro(1), Frank H. Page Jr. (2) (**), Myrna H. Wooders (3) (***)
(1) CORE, 34 voie du Roman Pays, B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium (e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org)
(2) Department of Finance, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA (e-mail: email@example.com)
(3) Department of Economics, University of Toronto, 150 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 (e-mail:firstname.lastname@example.org)
Received: 18 August 1997/Accepted:30 January 1998
Chichilnisky (1997) claims that another variant of her condition limiting arbitrage is necessary and sufficient for existence of equilibrium and nonemptiness of the core in an economy with short sales allowing half lines in indifference surfaces. Her proof, however, is based on a proposition purporting to relate her notion of "global cone" (see Chichilnisky (1997) for references) to the Page-Wooders "increasing cone." In this paper, we present a counterexample showing that parts (i) and (ii) of Chichilnisky's proposition are false. Thus, Chichilnisky's claimed result is without proof.
(**) F. H. Page gratefully acknowledges financial support from the RGC program at the University of Alabama
(***) M. H. Wooders is indebted to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for support.
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999