<p>At the heart of Debreu's representation theorem is his so-called &quot;gap theorem&quot;:</p>
<p>Let <span class="math-container">$S\subseteq[0,1]$</span>. A <em>gap</em> is a maximal nontrivial interval disjoint from <span class="math-container">$S$</span> with an upper and lower bound in <span class="math-container">$S$</span>. Debreu's gap theorem says that there is a strictly increasing function <span class="math-container">$f:S\to\mathbb{R}$</span> such that all gaps in the image <span class="math-container">$f(S)$</span> are open intervals. The intuition of Debreu was that if a gap is a half-open interval, then one can slide the endpoints together to remove the gap. His initial proof attempt based on this idea in [Debreu, Gerard. &quot;Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function.&quot; <em>Decision processes</em> 3 (1954): 159-165.] turned out to be wrong as Debreu himself observed in [Debreu, Gerard. &quot;Continuity properties of Paretian utility.&quot; <em>International Economic Review</em> 5.3 (1964): 285-293.], where he also supplied a very lengthy correct proof. There have been many proofs of the gap theorem since, starting with a slick but nonelementary proof based on measure theory in [Bowen, Robert. &quot;A new proof of a theorem in utility theory.&quot; <em>International Economic Review</em> 9.3 (1968): 374-374.]</p>
<p>Now, why is the gap theorem useful? Take any utility function <span class="math-container">$v:X\to [0,1]$</span> that represents continuous preferences. Let <span class="math-container">$u:X\to\mathbb{R}$</span> be the composition <span class="math-container">$f\circ v$</span> with <span class="math-container">$f$</span> the kind of function guaranteed to exist by the gap lemma. It turns out that <span class="math-container">$u$</span> is then continuous. Clearly, it also represents the preferences. Indeed, it suffices to show that for each <span class="math-container">$r\in\mathbb{R}$</span>, the preimages <span class="math-container">$u^{-1}\big ((-\infty, r]\big)$</span> and <span class="math-container">$u^{-1}\big([r, \infty)\big)$</span> are closed. Essentially, one uses the gap theorem to show these intervals are order-closed. Since preferences are continuous, order-closed sets are actually closed.</p>
<p>It is worth pointing out that this subject is very technical; there is no easy proof for Debreu's theorem in full generality.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-31T17:02:49.270Z
2022-07-31T17:02:49.270Z
Michael Greinecker
<p>Suppose that <span class="math-container">$X \subset \mathbb{R}^n$</span>. A preference relation <span class="math-container">$\preceq$</span> is reflexive, complete, transitive and continuous if and only if there exists a utility function <span class="math-container">$u:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$</span> that represents it.<br />
How we prove this kind of proof, I saw proof of Debreu Theorem but I don't understand every step and why it's true intuitively.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T09:51:48.757Z
Result is : A preference relation $\preceq$ is reflexive, complete, transitive and continuous if and only if there exists a continuous utility function $u:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that represents it. Examples posted here (both in the question and the answer) are examples of utility functions that represents discontinuous preference: https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/51772/11824
Amit
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T10:10:43.880Z
@Amit Can you explain briefly why both directions (if and only if) are true, I didn't understand that much even from the examples.
Djedjou Emery
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T11:30:03.543Z
Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T11:53:31.250Z
@Giskard I don't understand why it's true if the preference relation is continuous, and why it's true that it means that exists a continuous utility function.
Djedjou Emery
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T11:55:28.990Z
@Giskard More simple that debreu theorem means: " Every preference relation which is complete, transitive and continuous, can be represented by a continuous ordinal utility function." My question is why it's true
Djedjou Emery
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T13:12:27.453Z
Yes, I got that part, but did you read the proof somewhere? If yes, what part did you not understand? If not, are you asking for a reference of where you can read the proof?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T16:13:40.370Z
@Giskard I watch here: https://sites.pitt.edu/~luca/ECON2100/2018Class/lecture_03.pdf from page 11. (Debreu Theorem Proof) (Is one direction trivial? If yes, I don't see it, if you have explanation will be great or another site with a simply proof from this.
Djedjou Emery
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T16:18:29.237Z
@DjedjouEmery So, one direction is proven here; do you understand that one? The other direction is not proven at all. Have you tried reading that part of the proof in Debreu's original 1954 paper?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T16:19:11.990Z
@Giskard No, do you have maybe a link?
Djedjou Emery
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-29T16:19:37.130Z
@Giskard And I don't really understand unfortunately...
Djedjou Emery
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-31T17:01:42.503Z
Your question asks for the equivalence of these properties with the existence of any utility function. But you only get continuous preferences when a continuous utility representation exists.
Michael Greinecker
<utility><preferences>
A preference relation is continuous if and if there exists a utility function that represents it
Djedjou Emery
# A preference relation is continuous if and if there exists a utility function that represents it

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-07-29)

Suppose that $X \subset \mathbb{R}^n$. A preference relation $\preceq$ is reflexive, complete, transitive and continuous if and only if there exists a utility function $u:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that represents it.  
How we prove this kind of proof, I saw proof of Debreu Theorem but I don't understand every step and why it's true intuitively.

**Tags:** utility, preferences
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Result is : A preference relation $\preceq$ is reflexive, complete, transitive and continuous if and only if there exists a continuous utility function $u:X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that represents it. Examples posted here (both in the question and the answer) are examples of utility functions that represents discontinuous preference: https://economics.stackexchange.com/q/51772/11824  
> **username_0**: @Amit Can you explain briefly why both directions (if and only if) are true, I didn't understand that much even from the examples.  
> **username_2**: Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking.  
> **username_0**: @Giskard I don't understand why it's true if the preference relation is continuous, and why it's true that it means that exists a continuous utility function.  
> **username_0**: @Giskard More simple that debreu theorem means: " Every preference relation which is complete, transitive and continuous, can be represented by a continuous ordinal utility function." My question is why it's true  
> **username_2**: Yes, I got that part, but did you read the proof somewhere? If yes, what part did you not understand? If not, are you asking for a reference of where you can read the proof?  
> **username_0**: @Giskard I watch here: https://sites.pitt.edu/~luca/ECON2100/2018Class/lecture_03.pdf from page 11. (Debreu Theorem Proof) (Is one direction trivial? If yes, I don't see it, if you have explanation will be great or another site with a simply proof from this.  
> **username_2**: @DjedjouEmery So, one direction is proven here; do you understand that one? The other direction is not proven at all. Have you tried reading that part of the proof in Debreu's original 1954 paper?  
> **username_0**: @Giskard No, do you have maybe a link?  
> **username_0**: @Giskard And I don't really understand unfortunately...  
> **username_3**: Your question asks for the equivalence of these properties with the existence of any utility function. But you only get continuous preferences when a continuous utility representation exists.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2022-07-31. Score: 3 | Accepted answer

At the heart of Debreu's representation theorem is his so-called "gap theorem":

Let $S\subseteq[0,1]$. A *gap* is a maximal nontrivial interval disjoint from $S$ with an upper and lower bound in $S$. Debreu's gap theorem says that there is a strictly increasing function $f:S\to\mathbb{R}$ such that all gaps in the image $f(S)$ are open intervals. The intuition of Debreu was that if a gap is a half-open interval, then one can slide the endpoints together to remove the gap. His initial proof attempt based on this idea in [Debreu, Gerard. "Representation of a preference ordering by a numerical function." *Decision processes* 3 (1954): 159-165.] turned out to be wrong as Debreu himself observed in [Debreu, Gerard. "Continuity properties of Paretian utility." *International Economic Review* 5.3 (1964): 285-293.], where he also supplied a very lengthy correct proof. There have been many proofs of the gap theorem since, starting with a slick but nonelementary proof based on measure theory in [Bowen, Robert. "A new proof of a theorem in utility theory." *International Economic Review* 9.3 (1968): 374-374.]

Now, why is the gap theorem useful? Take any utility function $v:X\to [0,1]$ that represents continuous preferences. Let $u:X\to\mathbb{R}$ be the composition $f\circ v$ with $f$ the kind of function guaranteed to exist by the gap lemma. It turns out that $u$ is then continuous. Clearly, it also represents the preferences. Indeed, it suffices to show that for each $r\in\mathbb{R}$, the preimages $u^{-1}\big ((-\infty, r]\big)$ and $u^{-1}\big([r, \infty)\big)$ are closed. Essentially, one uses the gap theorem to show these intervals are order-closed. Since preferences are continuous, order-closed sets are actually closed.

It is worth pointing out that this subject is very technical; there is no easy proof for Debreu's theorem in full generality.


---

