Skip to main content
Log in

A necessary 4-cycle condition for dice representability of reciprocal relations

4OR Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The comparison of independent random variables can be modeled by a set of dice and a reciprocal relation expressing the winning probability of one dice over another. It is well known that dice transitivity is a necessary 3-cycle condition for a reciprocal relation to be dice representable, i.e. to be the winning probability relation of a set of dice. Although this 3-cycle condition is sufficient for a rational-valued reciprocal relation on a set of three elements to be dice representable, it has been shown that this is no longer the case for sets consisting of four or more elements. In this contribution, we provide a necessary 4-cycle condition for dice representability of reciprocal relations. Moreover, we show that our condition is sufficient in the sense that a given rational-weighted 4-cycle and reciprocally weighted inverse cycle, both fulfilling the 4-cycle condition, can be extended to a winning probability graph representing a dice-representable reciprocal relation on four elements.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

References

  • Bezdek J, Spillman B, Spillman R (1979) Fuzzy relation spaces for group decision theory. Fuzzy Set Syst 2:5–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black D (1958) The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Blyth C (1972) Some probability paradoxes in choice from among random alternatives. J Am Stat Assoc 67:366–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Condorcet M (1785) Essai sur l’Application de l’Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix. L’Imprimerie Royale, Paris

  • David H (1963) The method of paired comparisons. Griffin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • De Baets B, De Meyer H (2005) Transitivity frameworks for reciprocal relations: cycle-transitivity versus \(FG\)-transitivity. Fuzzy Set Syst 152:249–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Baets B, De Meyer H (2008) On the cycle-transitive comparison of artificially coupled random variables. Int J Approx Reason 47:306–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Baets B, De Meyer H, De Schuymer B, Jenei S (2006) Cyclic evaluation of transitivity of reciprocal relations. Soc Choice Welf 26:217–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Meyer H, De Baets B, De Schuymer B (2007) On the transitivity of the comonotonic and countermonotonic comparison of random variables. J Multivar Anal 98:177–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Schuymer B, De Meyer H, De Baets B, Jenei S (2003) On the cycle-transitivity of the dice model. Theory Decis 54:261–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Schuymer B, De Meyer H, De Baets B (2005) Cycle-transitive comparison of independent random variables. J Multivar Anal 96:352–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Schuymer B, De Meyer H, De Baets B (2007) Extreme copulas and the comparison of ordered lists. Theory Decis 62:195–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn P (1973) Binary choice probabilities: on the varieties of stochastic transitivity. J Math Psychol 10:327–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funkenbush W (1982) A gaming wheel based on cyclic advantage in symbol choice. Scientia Sinica 10: 68–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Funkenbush W, Saari D (1983) Preferences among preferences or nested cyclic stochastic inequalities. Congr Numerantium 39:419–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner M (1970) Mathematical games: the paradox of the nontransitive dice and the elusive principle of indifference. Sci Am 223:110–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Honsberger R (1983) Some surprises in probability, chap 5. In: Honsberger R (ed) Mathematical plums. Mathematical Association of America, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nurmi H (1981) Approaches to collective decision making with fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Set Syst 6:249–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage R (1994) The paradox of nontransitive dice. Am Math Mon 101:429–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhaus H, Trybula S (1959) On a paradox in applied probabilities. Bull Polish Acad Sci 7:67–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Switalski S (1999) Rationality of fuzzy reciprocal preference relations. Fuzzy Set Syst 107:187–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanino T (1984) Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Set Syst 12:117–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. De Loof.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Loof, K., De Baets, B. & De Meyer, H. A necessary 4-cycle condition for dice representability of reciprocal relations. 4OR-Q J Oper Res 11, 151–170 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-012-0214-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-012-0214-z

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification (2000)

Navigation