 of a single element of $B$ is deferred to a later time, usually with a different procedure (according to additional information or “subjective randomization", e.g., flipping a coin). Notice that the rejection map associated to a choice may fail to be a choice, since the rejection set of some menu can be empty.

The next definition recalls the classical notion of a rationalizable choice.

\[DEF:rationalizable choice\] A choice $c \colon \Omega \rightrightarrows U$ is *rationalizable* (or *binary*) if there exists a binary relation $\precsim$ on $U$ such that the equality[^5] $c(B) = \max_{\precsim} B$ holds for all menus $B \in \Omega$.

The revealed preference theory approach postulates that preferences can be derived from choices. The preference revealed by a primitive choice is modeled by a suitable binary relation on the set of alternatives. Then a choice is rationalizable whenever the observed behavior can be fully explained (i.e., retrieved) by constructing a binary relation of revealed preference.

The rationalizability of choice is traditionally connected to the satisfaction of suitable *axioms of choice consistency*. These axioms codify rules of coherent behavior of an economic agent. Among the several axioms that are considered in the literature, the following are relevant to our analysis (a universal quantification on all the involved menus is implicit):

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
  **axiom $(\alpha)$** \[*standard contraction consistency*\]:          $A \subseteq B \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; A \cap c(B) \subseteq c(A)$                                                  
  \[.1cm\] **axiom $(\gamma)$** \[*standard expansion consistency*\]:   $c(A) \cap c(B) \subseteq c(A \cup B)$                                                                                
  \[.1cm\] **axiom $(\beta)$** \[*symmetric expansion consistency*\]:   $\big(A \subseteq B \: \wedge \: c(A) \cap c(B) \neq \emptyset \big) \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; c(A) \subseteq c(B)$   
  \[.1cm\] **axiom $(\rho)$** \[*standard replacement consistency*\]:   $c(A) \setminus c(A \cup B) \neq \emptyset \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; B \cap
of a single element of $ B$ is deferred to a later meter, normally with a different procedure (harmonize to extra information or “ subjective randomization ", e.g., flip a coin). Notice that the rejection map associate to a choice may fail to be a choice, since the rejection hardening of some menu can be empty. 

 The next definition recalls the authoritative notion of a rationalizable choice. 

 \[DEF: rationalizable choice\ ] A option $ c \colon \Omega \rightrightarrows U$ is * rationalizable * (or * binary *) if there exist a binary sexual intercourse $ \precsim$ on $ U$ such that the equality[^5 ] $ c(B) = \max_{\precsim } B$ holds for all menus $ B \in \Omega$. 

 The reveal preference theory approach contend that preferences can be derived from choices. The preference revealed by a crude choice is modeled by a suitable binary relation on the set of alternatives. Then a choice is rationalizable whenever the observed behavior can be fully explained (i.e., retrieved) by constructing a binary relation of revealed preference. 

 The rationalizability of choice is traditionally get in touch to the satisfaction of suitable * axiom of option consistency *. These axioms codify rule of coherent behavior of an economic agent. Among the respective axioms that are regard in the literature, the following are relevant to our analysis (a cosmopolitan quantification on all the involved menus is implicit ): 

   --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 
   * * axiom $ (\alpha)$ * * \[*standard contraction consistency*\ ]:           $ A \subseteq B \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; A \cap c(B) \subseteq c(A)$                                                  
   \[.1cm\ ] * * axiom $ (\gamma)$ * * \[*standard expansion consistency*\ ]:    $ c(A) \cap c(B) \subseteq c(A \cup B)$                                                                                
   \[.1cm\ ] * * axiom $ (\beta)$ * * \[*symmetric expansion consistency*\ ]:    $ \big(A \subseteq B \: \wedge \: c(A) \cap c(B) \neq \emptyset \big) \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; c(A) \subseteq c(B)$   
   \[.1cm\ ] * * axiom $ (\rho)$ * * \[*standard replacement consistency*\ ]:    $ c(A) \setminus c(A \cup B) \neq \emptyset \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; B \cap
 of a single element of $B$ ir deferred to a later vime, ushally wigh a different procedure (acclreing uj additional inforoation or “subjectuve candomization", e.g., flippinn a ckln). Nocire that the rejgction map avsociated to a cfonce may fail to be a choice, since thq rejecyiln set of some menl san gv tmpty.

The next definition recalls fhe clavsical notion of a rationalizable choicf.

\[DEF:gationalizable cholce\] A choicg $c \silon \Omega \rkghtrightagxows U$ is *rztionalizable* (or *binary*) if therd exixts a binatv repdtion $\precsmm$ on $L$ such that tmv equalhty[^5] $c(B) = \max_{\precsim} B$ molds foe all menus $B \in \Omege$.

The revealed prefergnce theorf cpproach postulates tyar prexeretces xan be dxribed frlm rhoices. The preference revealed by a primotynr choice is jodeleq fy a suitable binary relation on the seu of zlternatives. Then a chouce is rationalizable whenever the observed behavior can be fully explained (i.e., setrixvdd) yn zindtructing a binary relation of revealed prefewsnve.

Nhe rationalizabijity of choocf of traditionaluy conuscfed to the satisfaftion os suirable *axijms pf choice consistency*. These axioms codiyy eules of coherent yehavior of cn ecomomic agent. Among the severau axjoms that age considsfed in the literxtuge, tve following are relevant eo our anelysix (a unixerssl quagtificatioj on all the involved mejus id hmplicit):

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
  **axiom $(\alpha)$** \[*standard contrarvion consistemcf*\]:          $C \subscteq B \;\; \Longrigrtarrow \;\; A \cap c(B) \subfeteq c(A)$                                                  
  \[.1cm\] **axioi $(\ganma)$** \[*wtandara expansion conxistency*\]:   $c(A) \cap c(V) \subseteq c(A \cup N)$                                                                                
  \[.1cm\] **axlom $(\bets)$** \[*symmetric expansiot cohsistency*\]:   $\big(A \sibfeteq B \: \wedge \: s(A) \cap c(B) \neq \emptyset \big) \;\; \Lonhrighvarrow \;\; c(A) \xubfeteq c(B)$   
  \[.1cm\] **axiom $(\rho)$** \[*stansard replwceient consistqncy*\]:   $c(A) \setminbs c(A \cup B) \neq \emptyset \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; B \cap
of a single element of $B$ is a time, usually a different procedure “subjective e.g., flipping a Notice that the map associated to a choice may to be a choice, since the rejection set of some menu can be The next definition recalls the classical notion of a rationalizable choice. \[DEF:rationalizable choice\] choice \colon \rightrightarrows is *rationalizable* (or *binary*) if there exists a binary relation $\precsim$ on $U$ such that the $c(B) = \max_{\precsim} B$ holds for all menus \in \Omega$. The revealed theory approach postulates that preferences be from choices. preference by primitive choice is by a suitable binary relation on the set of alternatives. Then a choice is rationalizable whenever the behavior can explained (i.e., by a relation of revealed rationalizability of choice is traditionally connected of suitable *axioms of choice consistency*. These axioms rules of behavior of an economic agent. Among several axioms that are considered in the literature, following are relevant to our analysis (a universal quantification on all the involved menus is --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- **axiom $(\alpha)$** contraction consistency*\]: $A B \Longrightarrow A c(B) \subseteq \[.1cm\] **axiom $(\gamma)$** \[*standard expansion consistency*\]: $c(A) \cap c(B) \subseteq c(A B)$ \[.1cm\] **axiom $(\beta)$** \[*symmetric expansion consistency*\]: $\big(A \subseteq B \: \cap c(B) \neq \big) \;\; \Longrightarrow \;\; \subseteq \[.1cm\] **axiom $(\rho)$** \[*standard $c(A) c(A \emptyset \Longrightarrow B \cap
 of a single element of $B$ is defeRred to a latEr timE, usUalLy With A difFerent procedurE (AccoRding to additional inforMatioN oR “SubjECtIve raNdomizaTIoN", E.G., flIpPiNg a CoIN). NOtice ThaT the rejEction map aSsoCiAted to a choicE MaY fail to be a ChoIce, since the rEjeCtion sEt Of sOMe menU caN be emPty.

The NExt defInition reCaLLs the cLAssical NOTiOn of A rationalizable chOIcE.

\[dEF:rationalizaBle choIcE\] a cHOIce $C \coLon \Omega \riGhTrighTArrows U$ IS *rATIOnaLIzable* (or *binarY*) if there exiSTs a Binary ReLatIOn $\precSim$ on $u$ sUCh tHat the equalIty[^5] $c(b) = \max_{\precsIm} B$ holDS for all MEnus $B \in \omega$.

THe rEveAled PReFeRenCe THeoRY aPprOAch PostulatEs ThAt preFereNCES Can bE deRiveD from Choices. The preFerEnce REveAled bY a priMitiVe ChoicE is modEled bY a Suitable binary rElatIon on the sEt oF aLteRnAtiveS. then a cHoiCe iS rationAlizablE WheNeVER ThE observed behavior cAn BE FuLly explaIned (i.e., REtRiEVed) by conStRucTing A BInary RelaTIoN of reveaLed preFErEnCe.

The raTiOnalizAbIliTy oF choiCE is tRaditiOnally coNnectED to the satisfacTIon of suitable *AXiOMS oF ChoiCe cOnsistency*. THese AXiomS codIFy RulES of coHerenT bEHaVIor of an economic agenT. AMong thE seveRal axioms that Are consideRED In the litEratURe, THe following are RelevAnt to our anALysis (a unIversAl quantiFication oN ALl the invOlvEd mEnuS is IMPlIcit):

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
  **axiom $(\alphA)$** \[*STandArD contraCtiOn consiSteNcy*\]:          $a \suBseTeQ B \;\; \LongrigHtarrow \;\; A \CaP c(b) \sUbSetEq c(A)$                                                  
  \[.1cM\] **Axiom $(\gamMa)$** \[*StaNdArd ExpanSIon conSisteNcy*\]:   $c(a) \cAp C(b) \suBseteq c(a \CuP b)$                                                                                
  \[.1Cm\] **axIoM $(\bEta)$** \[*sYmmEtRic exPansIOn cOnsisteNcy*\]:   $\big(A \suBseTEq B \: \wEdGe \: C(A) \cap c(B) \Neq \emptyset \biG) \;\; \LOngrightarRoW \;\; c(A) \SubsetEQ C(B)$   
  \[.1cm\] **axioM $(\rho)$** \[*standard replacement COnsisteNcy*\]:   $C(A) \setMinuS c(A \cup B) \neQ \emPtyset \;\; \lonGRightaRrow \;\; B \cAp
 of a single element of $B $ is defer red t o a  la te r ti me,usually with a diff erent procedure (accor dingto addi t io nal i nformat i on o r “ su bj ect iv e  r andom iza tion",e.g., flip pin ga coin). Not i ce  that therej ection map a sso ciated  t o a choic e m ay fa il tob e a ch oice, sin ce the re j ections e tof s ome menu can be e m pt y .

The next de finiti on re c a lls  th e classica lnotio n  of a r a ti o n a liz a ble choice.
\[DEF:ratio n ali zablech oic e \] A c hoice  $ c  \c olon \Omega  \ri ghtrighta rrowsU $ is *r a tionali zable*  (o r * bina r y* )ifth e ree xi sts a b inary re la ti on $\ prec s i m $  on$U$  suc h tha t the equalit y[^ 5] $ c (B)  = \m ax_{\ prec si m} B$  holds  foral l menus $B \in\Ome ga$.

The  re ve ale dprefe r ence t heo ryapproac h postu l ate st h a tpreferences can be  d e r iv ed fromchoice s .Th e  prefere nc e r evea l e d bya pr i mi tive cho ice is mo de led byasuitab le  bi nar y rel a tion  on th e set of  alte r natives. Thena  choice is ra t io n a li z able  wh enever theobse r vedbeha v io r c a n befully  e x pl a ined (i.e., retriev ed ) by c onstr ucting a bina ry relatio n o f reveal ed p r ef e rence.

The ra tiona lizability of choic e istraditio nally con n e cted tothe  sa tis fac t i on  of suitable* a xiom sof choi ceconsist enc y*.  Th ese  a xioms cod ify rule sof  c oh ere nt be h avior of  a n e co nom ic ag e nt. Am ong t he s ev er a l a xioms t h at a re c on si dere d i nthe l iter a tur e, thefollowing  ar e  rel ev an t to ou r analysis (a  u niversal q ua nti ficati o n  on allthe involved menus is i m plicit) :
  --- ---- --------- --- ------ --- - ------ ------ ----- -- --- - - ----- - - -- --- -- -- ------- - - --- ----- -- ---- ------- ------------------ - --- ------------- --- ---- - - -- --- - -- - --- -- - --- - - --------------- -------- - - * *axiom $(\ a lph a) $** \[* standar d con t raction  consiste ncy*\]:     $A\subseteqB \;\; \ Longright a rrow\ ;\ ; A \ cap  c(B)\s ubs eteqc(A)$                                        
  \[.1cm\]**axio m $(\ gam ma)$** \[ *st a nda rd expans ionconsistenc y*\ ]:  $c( A)\ cap c (B)\ su bse t eq c( A \c u p B)$                                                             
 \[. 1 c m\]  ** a xiom  $ (\beta)$** \[* sym me t r ic expan si on consiste ncy*\]: $ \big( A \sub seteqB \: \w e d ge \: c(A ) \c apc(B) \neq  \e mp t yset \b ig )\ ;\; \L ongr ig htarro w \;\; c(A) \ subseteq c(B)$  
  \ [ . 1cm\] **a xiom$( \rho)$* *  \[* standard r eplacementconsis tenc y*\]:    $c(A )\setmi nus  c (A \cup B) \neq \emp tyset  \;\; \ Lo ngri ght arrow\;\; B  \cap 
 of_a single_element of $B$ is_deferred to_a_later time,_usually_with a different_procedure (according to_additional information or “subjective_randomization", e.g., flipping_a_coin). Notice that the rejection map associated to a choice may fail to be_a_choice, since_the_rejection_set of some menu can_be empty.

The next definition recalls_the classical_notion of a rationalizable choice.

\[DEF:rationalizable choice\] A choice_$c_\colon \Omega \rightrightarrows_U$ is *rationalizable* (or *binary*) if there exists a_binary relation $\precsim$ on $U$ such_that the equality[^5]_$c(B)_=_\max_{\precsim} B$ holds for_all menus $B \in \Omega$.

The revealed_preference theory approach postulates that preferences_can be derived from choices. The preference_revealed by a primitive choice is_modeled by a suitable binary_relation on_the set of alternatives. Then_a choice is_rationalizable whenever_the observed behavior_can be fully explained (i.e., retrieved)_by constructing a_binary relation of revealed preference.

The rationalizability_of_choice is traditionally_connected_to_the satisfaction_of suitable *axioms_of_choice consistency*._These_axioms codify rules of coherent behavior_of_an economic agent. Among the several axioms_that are considered in_the_literature, the following are_relevant to our analysis (a_universal quantification on all the involved_menus is_implicit):

 _--------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
  **axiom $(\alpha)$** \[*standard contraction consistency*\]:  _     _ $A \subseteq B_\;\; \Longrightarrow_\;\;_A \cap c(B)_\subseteq_c(A)$ _      _ _     _   __     _     _    ___    _    
 _\[.1cm\] **axiom $(\gamma)$**_\[*standard expansion consistency*\]:   $c(A) \cap_c(B)_\subseteq c(A \cup B)$  __     ___    _     _        _  _    ___         _ _  _         _      _      
  \[.1cm\] **axiom $(\beta)$**_\[*symmetric expansion consistency*\]:   $\big(A \subseteq B_\: \wedge \: c(A) \cap c(B) \neq_\emptyset \big) \;\; \Longrightarrow_\;\;_c(A) \subseteq c(B)$   
 _\[.1cm\]_**axiom_$(\rho)$**_\[*standard replacement consistency*\]:_  $c(A)_\setminus c(A \cup_B) \neq_\emptyset \;\; \Longrightarrow_\;\; B_\cap