<p>It seems you are not confused about part (1) because that's exactly what it means.</p>

<p>Lexicographic preferences are monotone. Monotonicity means more is better. If I have more of every good in the bundle, then I like that bundle more. This is still true for lexicographic preferences, even though parts of the bundle may not matter. A condition for monotonicity is e.g. that (5,4) is preferred to (3,1). In other words if 5>3 and 4>1 then the first bundle is preferred. This is true for lexicographic preferences.</p>

<p>Your definitions of strict monotonicity and lexicographic preferences seem to deviate a bit from conventional definitions though. Here is a proof using your definitions.</p>

<p>Proof:</p>

<p>Let us compare two bundles with $n$ elements each: $x=(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)$ and $y=(y_1, y_2, ...,y_n)$</p>

<p>It is best to start with the if statement when going about proving such claims. The condition and therefore starting point is $x_1&gt;y_1$ and $x_2&gt;y_2$, .... , and $x_n&gt;y_n$.</p>

<p>In that case since  $x_1&gt;y_1$ we have according to your preference definition that bundle $x$ is preferred to bundle $y$. Furthermore we have that bundle $y$ is not preferred to bundle $x$. So bundle $x$ is strictly preferred.</p>

<p>Hence, we have shown that if $x_i$>$y_i$ for each $i$, then $x$ is preferred (because in that case $x_1 &gt; y_1$), which is your definition of monotonicity. The preferences are therefore monotonic.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-19T11:58:49.240Z
To complete this (correct) answer, my impression is that the OP was confused about the direction of the implication. Strict monotonicity means that $(x_1>y_1,x_2>y_2)$ implies that $x$ is stricly preferred to $y$. But it does not means that the reverse implication is true. In other words, $x$ being strictly preferred to $y$ does not imply that $(x_1>y_1,x_2>y_2)$, which is why the example with $(2,5)$ and $(1,100)$ does not violate strict monotonicity.
Oliv
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-19T10:48:32.627Z
2017-03-20T09:43:41.567Z
2017-03-20T09:43:41.567Z
BB King
<p>I'm a bit confused about lexicographic preferences and whether they abide by the strict monotonicity axiom.</p>

<p>The definition we were given for strict monotonicity is:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>For any two bundles $x$ and $y$, if $x_i \succsim y_i$ for each good $i$, then $x$ is strictly preferred to $y$</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The preferences are summarized below:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>(1) The bundle that has more of good 1 is better, regardless of the amount of good 2.</p>
  
  <p>(2) If the amount of good 1 is the same, the bundle that has more of good 2 is better.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I'm confused about part (1), because a bundle can have much more of good 2 but still be preferred if it has a bit more of good 1, e.g. $(2,5)$ is preferred to $(1,100)$, even though it has so much more in it. Surely that can't follow the provided definition of strict monotonicity (or am I really thick)?</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-20T08:37:28.067Z
Your definition of *strict monotonicity* looks incomplete as it would suggest that if $x=y$ then $x$ is strictly preferred to $y$ and $y$ is strictly preferred to $x$.  Do you need to add "and $x_j \succ y_j$ for some good $j$"?
Henry
<microeconomics><utility><consumer-theory><preferences>
Are lexicographic preferences strictly monotonic?
Elizabeth 
# Are lexicographic preferences strictly monotonic?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-03-19)

I'm a bit confused about lexicographic preferences and whether they abide by the strict monotonicity axiom.

The definition we were given for strict monotonicity is:

> For any two bundles $x$ and $y$, if $x\_i \succsim y\_i$ for each good $i$, then $x$ is strictly preferred to $y$

The preferences are summarized below:

> (1) The bundle that has more of good 1 is better, regardless of the amount of good 2.
>
> (2) If the amount of good 1 is the same, the bundle that has more of good 2 is better.

I'm confused about part (1), because a bundle can have much more of good 2 but still be preferred if it has a bit more of good 1, e.g. $(2,5)$ is preferred to $(1,100)$, even though it has so much more in it. Surely that can't follow the provided definition of strict monotonicity (or am I really thick)?

Thanks!

**Tags:** microeconomics, utility, consumer-theory, preferences
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Your definition of *strict monotonicity* looks incomplete as it would suggest that if $x=y$ then $x$ is strictly preferred to $y$ and $y$ is strictly preferred to $x$.  Do you need to add "and $x_j \succ y_j$ for some good $j$"?  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-03-19. Score: 3

It seems you are not confused about part (1) because that's exactly what it means.

Lexicographic preferences are monotone. Monotonicity means more is better. If I have more of every good in the bundle, then I like that bundle more. This is still true for lexicographic preferences, even though parts of the bundle may not matter. A condition for monotonicity is e.g. that (5,4) is preferred to (3,1). In other words if 5>3 and 4>1 then the first bundle is preferred. This is true for lexicographic preferences.

Your definitions of strict monotonicity and lexicographic preferences seem to deviate a bit from conventional definitions though. Here is a proof using your definitions.

Proof:

Let us compare two bundles with $n$ elements each: $x=(x\_1, x\_2, ..., x\_n)$ and $y=(y\_1, y\_2, ...,y\_n)$

It is best to start with the if statement when going about proving such claims. The condition and therefore starting point is $x\_1>y\_1$ and $x\_2>y\_2$, .... , and $x\_n>y\_n$.

In that case since $x\_1>y\_1$ we have according to your preference definition that bundle $x$ is preferred to bundle $y$. Furthermore we have that bundle $y$ is not preferred to bundle $x$. So bundle $x$ is strictly preferred.

Hence, we have shown that if $x\_i$>$y\_i$ for each $i$, then $x$ is preferred (because in that case $x\_1 > y\_1$), which is your definition of monotonicity. The preferences are therefore monotonic.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: To complete this (correct) answer, my impression is that the OP was confused about the direction of the implication. Strict monotonicity means that $(x_1>y_1,x_2>y_2)$ implies that $x$ is stricly preferred to $y$. But it does not means that the reverse implication is true. In other words, $x$ being strictly preferred to $y$ does not imply that $(x_1>y_1,x_2>y_2)$, which is why the example with $(2,5)$ and $(1,100)$ does not violate strict monotonicity.  

---

