 holds due to the definition of $\cfFn{j}$ and the second inequality holds due to the definition of $\umax{j}$. Equation (\[eq:fpUtil\]) then implies that $\payoff{j} \ge 0$ for all agents $j$, so we must have that $\payoff{j} = 0$ for all agents $j$.

By Claim \[cl:fpEq\], there exists a profile $\ubvec = (\ubj)_{j \in J}$ of utility levels and a  $(\p,(\bunj)_{j \in j})$ in the corresponding  with $$\label{eq:tFpFinal}
\numerdowj = \cf{j}{\bunj}{\ubj} + \p \cdot (\bunj - \bundowj)$$ for all agents $j$. Lemma \[lem:dHvalH\] implies that $\bunj \in \dH{j}{\p}{\ubj}$ for all agents $j$, and we have that $\util{j}{\numerdowj - \p \cdot (\bunj - \bundowj),\bunj} = \ubj$ for all agents $j$ by Equation (\[eq:tFpFinal\]) and the definition of $\cfFn{j}$. It follows from Fact \[fac:dualDem\] that $\bunj \in \dM{j}{\p}{\bunndowj}$ for all agents $j,$ so the price vector $\p$ and the allocation $(\bunj)_{j \in J}$ of goods comprise a  in the original economy for the endowment allocation $(\bunndowj)_{j \in J}$.

Proof of Proposition \[prop:ssubst\] {#app:grossToNet}
====================================

We actually prove a stronger statement.

\[cl:marshallNetWeak\] Suppose that agent $j$ demands at most one unit of each good and let $\bundow \in \Feas{j}$. A utility function $\utilFn{j}$ is a  utility function if for all money endowments $\numerdow > \feas{j},$ price vectors $\p,$ and $0 < \mu < \lambda$, whenever

1.  \[cond:start\] $\dM{j}{\p}{\bunndow} = \{\bun\}$,


holds due to the definition of $ \cfFn{j}$ and the second inequality holds due to the definition of $ \umax{j}$. Equation (\[eq: fpUtil\ ]) then implies that $ \payoff{j } \ge 0 $ for all agents $ j$, therefore we must take that $ \payoff{j } = 0 $ for all agents $ j$. 

 By Claim   \[cl: fpEq\ ], there exists a profile $ \ubvec = (\ubj)_{j \in J}$ of utility program levels and a   $ (\p,(\bunj)_{j \in j})$ in the corresponding   with $ $ \label{eq: tFpFinal } 
 \numerdowj = \cf{j}{\bunj}{\ubj } + \p \cdot (\bunj - \bundowj)$$ for all agents $ j$. Lemma   \[lem: dHvalH\ ] implies that $ \bunj \in \dH{j}{\p}{\ubj}$ for all agent $ j$, and we have that $ \util{j}{\numerdowj - \p \cdot (\bunj - \bundowj),\bunj } = \ubj$ for all agents $ j$ by Equation (\[eq: tFpFinal\ ]) and the definition of $ \cfFn{j}$. It come from Fact   \[fac: dualDem\ ] that $ \bunj \in \dM{j}{\p}{\bunndowj}$ for all agents $ j,$ so the price vector $ \p$ and the allotment $ (\bunj)_{j \in J}$ of goods comprise a   in the original economy for the endowment allocation $ (\bunndowj)_{j \in J}$. 

 Proof of Proposition   \[prop: ssubst\ ] { # app: grossToNet } 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 We actually rise a stronger statement. 

 \[cl: marshallNetWeak\ ] Suppose that agent $ j$ demands at about one unit of each good and let $ \bundow \in \Feas{j}$. A utility program function $ \utilFn{j}$ is a   utility function if for all money endowments $ \numerdow > \feas{j},$ price vector $ \p,$ and $ 0 < \mu < \lambda$, whenever 

 1.   \[cond: start\ ] $ \dM{j}{\p}{\bunndow } = \{\bun\}$,
 hopds due to the definitiok of $\cfFn{j}$ and tkw secoid ineqhality hulds due to the definition oh $\umqx{j}$. Ewuation (\[eq:fpUtil\]) then kmplies tjat $\payodf{j} \je 0$ for all agenva $j$, so we musf havz vhat $\payoff{j} = 0$ nor all agetts $j$.

By Claim \[cn:foEe\], there exists a profile $\ubvec = (\ubj)_{t \in J}$ pf utility levelf anc a  $(\p,(\glnm)_{j \in j})$ in the corresponding  witg $$\label{tq:tFpFinal}
\numerdowk = \cf{j}{\bunj}{\ubj} + \p \cdot (\bunj - \bujdowj)$$ for all agenhs $j$. Lemma \[lgj:dHdqlH\] implies ghat $\bunj \pu \dH{j}{\p}{\ubj}$ fkr all agents $j$, and we have thag $\utik{j}{\numerdowh - \p \fgot (\bunj - \bnndowj),\funj} = \ubj$ fov all acents $j$ by Equation (\[ea:tF'Finql\]) and the definition of $\cfFn{j}$. It follors from Fdcc \[fac:dualDem\] that $\bunj \ib \dM{j}{\k}{\bunngowj}$ dor alm egehts $j,$ do vhe price vsctor $\p$ and the allocation $(\bunk)_{j \pm J}$ of goods comprysq a  in the original economy for the endmwmsnt allocation $(\bunndowj)_{h \in J}$.

Proof of Proposltion \[prop:fsubst\] {#app:grossToNet}
====================================

We actually prove a stronger vtatejdnt.

\[eo:marsfqlpNetWeak\] Suppose that agent $j$ demands at most knt ukit of each good and let $\bumdlw \yn \Feas{j}$. A utklity yhndtion $\utilFn{j}$ is a  utiliti funcrion if fjr akl money endowments $\numerdoq > \feas{j},$ pribe vwctors $\p,$ and $0 < \mu < \lambda$, wheuever

1.  \[cond:xtart\] $\dM{j}{\p}{\bunndow} = \{\bun\}$,


holds due to the definition of $\cfFn{j}$ second holds due the definition of that \ge 0$ for agents $j$, so must have that $\payoff{j} = 0$ all agents $j$. By Claim \[cl:fpEq\], there exists a profile $\ubvec = (\ubj)_{j J}$ of utility levels and a $(\p,(\bunj)_{j \in j})$ in the corresponding with \numerdowj \cf{j}{\bunj}{\ubj} \p (\bunj - \bundowj)$$ for all agents $j$. Lemma \[lem:dHvalH\] implies that $\bunj \in \dH{j}{\p}{\ubj}$ for all $j$, and we have that $\util{j}{\numerdowj - \p (\bunj - \bundowj),\bunj} = for all agents $j$ by (\[eq:tFpFinal\]) the definition $\cfFn{j}$. follows Fact \[fac:dualDem\] that \in \dM{j}{\p}{\bunndowj}$ for all agents $j,$ so the price vector $\p$ and the allocation $(\bunj)_{j \in J}$ goods comprise the original for endowment $(\bunndowj)_{j \in J}$. Proposition \[prop:ssubst\] {#app:grossToNet} ==================================== We actually statement. \[cl:marshallNetWeak\] Suppose that agent $j$ demands at one unit each good and let $\bundow \in A utility function $\utilFn{j}$ is a utility function for all money endowments $\numerdow > \feas{j},$ price vectors $\p,$ and $0 < \mu < 1. \[cond:start\] $\dM{j}{\p}{\bunndow} =
 holds due to the definition of $\CfFn{j}$ and thE secoNd iNeqUaLity HoldS due to the definITion Of $\umax{j}$. Equation (\[eq:fpUtiL\]) then ImPLies THaT $\payoFf{j} \ge 0$ foR AlL AGenTs $J$, sO we MuST hAve thAt $\pAyoff{j} = 0$ fOr all agentS $j$.

BY CLaim \[cl:fpEq\], thERe Exists a proFilE $\ubvec = (\ubj)_{j \in j}$ of UtilitY lEveLS and a  $(\P,(\buNj)_{j \in J})$ in the COrrespOnding  witH $$\lABel{eq:tfPFinal}
\nUMErDowj = \Cf{j}{\bunj}{\ubj} + \p \cdot (\buNJ - \bUNdowj)$$ for all ageNts $j$. LeMmA \[LeM:DhvaLH\] iMplies that $\BuNj \in \dh{J}{\p}{\ubj}$ foR AlL AGEntS $J$, and we have thaT $\util{j}{\numerDOwj - \P \cdot (\bUnJ - \buNDowj),\buNj} = \ubj$ FoR All Agents $j$ by EqUatiOn (\[eq:tFpFiNal\]) and THe definITion of $\cFFn{j}$. It FolLowS froM faCt \[Fac:DuALDeM\] ThAt $\bUNj \iN \dM{j}{\p}{\bunNdOwJ}$ for aLl agENTS $J,$ so tHe pRice VectoR $\p$ and the allocAtiOn $(\buNJ)_{j \iN J}$ of gOods cOmprIsE a  in tHe origInal eCoNomy for the endowMent AllocatioN $(\buNnDowJ)_{j \In J}$.

PrOOf of PrOpoSitIon \[prop:Ssubst\] {#aPP:grOsStOneT}
====================================

We actually prove a sTrONGeR statemeNt.

\[cl:maRShAlLnetWeak\] SUpPosE thaT AGent $j$ DemaNDs At most onE unit oF EaCh Good and LeT $\bundoW \iN \FeAs{j}$. a utilITy fuNction $\UtilFn{j}$ iS a  utiLIty function if fOR all money endoWMeNTS $\nUMerdOw > \fEas{j},$ price veCtorS $\P,$ and $0 < \Mu < \laMBdA$, whENever

1.  \[Cond:sTaRT\] $\dm{J}{\p}{\bunndow} = \{\bun\}$,


 holds due to the definiti on of $\cf Fn{j} $ a ndth e se cond  inequality ho l ds d ue to the definition o f $\u ma x {j}$ .  E quati on (\[e q :f p U til \] )the ni mp liestha t $\pay off{j} \ge  0$  f or all agent s  $ j$, so wemus t have that$\p ayoff{ j}  =0 $ for  al l age nts $j $ .

ByClaim \[c l: f pEq\], there e x i st s aprofile $\ubvec = (\ u bj)_{j \in J}$  of ut il i ty l eve lsand a  $(\ p, (\bun j )_{j \i n  j } ) $  in the correspon ding  with$ $\l abel{e q: tFp F inal}\nume rd o wj= \cf{j}{\b unj} {\ubj} +\p \cd o t (\bun j  - \bun dowj)$ $ f oralla ge nt s $ j$ .  Le m ma  \[ l em: dHvalH\]  i mp liesthat $ \ b unj\in  \dH {j}{\ p}{\ubj}$ for  al l ag e nts  $j$,  andwe h av e tha t $\ut il{j} {\ numerdowj - \p\cdo t (\bunj- \ bu ndo wj ),\bu n j} = \ ubj $ f or allagents$ j$by E q ua tion (\[eq:tFpFina l\ ] )  a nd the d efinit i on  o f  $\cfFn{ j} $.It f o l lowsfrom Fa ct \[fac :dualD e m\ ]that $\ bu nj \in  \ dM{ j}{ \p}{\ b unnd owj}$for allagent s  $j,$ so the p r ice vector $\ p $a n dt he a llo cation $(\b unj) _ {j \ in J } $ofg oodscompr is e  a  in the original ec on omy fo r the  endowment al location $ ( \ b unndowj) _{j\ in J}$.

Proof of  Prop osition \[ p rop:ssub st\]{#app:gr ossToNet} = ======== === === === === = = == ===========
W e  act ua lly pro vea stron ger  st ate men t. 

\[cl:ma rshallNe tW ea k\ ]Sup poset hat agen t$j$  d ema nds a t  mostone u nitof  e a chgood an d  l e t  $\b un do w \i n \ Fe as{j} $. A uti lity fu nction $\ uti l Fn{j }$  i s a  ut ility functio nif for all  m one y endo w m ents $\n umerdow > \feas{j},$ pr i ce vect ors  $\p, $ an d $0 < \m u <  \lamb da$ ,  whene ver

1 .  \[ co nd: s t art\] $ \d M{j }{ \p}{\bunnd o w } =  \{\b un \}$, 


 holds_due to_the definition of $\cfFn{j}$_and the_second_inequality holds_due_to the definition_of $\umax{j}$. Equation_(\[eq:fpUtil\]) then implies that_$\payoff{j} \ge 0$_for_all agents $j$, so we must have that $\payoff{j} = 0$ for all agents_$j$.

By_Claim \[cl:fpEq\], there_exists_a_profile $\ubvec = (\ubj)_{j \in_J}$ of utility levels and_a  $(\p,(\bunj)_{j_\in j})$ in the corresponding  with $$\label{eq:tFpFinal}
\numerdowj =_\cf{j}{\bunj}{\ubj}_+ \p \cdot_(\bunj - \bundowj)$$ for all agents $j$. Lemma \[lem:dHvalH\] implies_that $\bunj \in \dH{j}{\p}{\ubj}$ for all_agents $j$, and_we_have_that $\util{j}{\numerdowj - \p_\cdot (\bunj - \bundowj),\bunj} = \ubj$_for all agents $j$ by Equation_(\[eq:tFpFinal\]) and the definition of $\cfFn{j}$. It_follows from Fact \[fac:dualDem\] that $\bunj \in_\dM{j}{\p}{\bunndowj}$ for all agents $j,$_so the_price vector $\p$ and the_allocation $(\bunj)_{j \in_J}$ of_goods comprise a_ in the original economy for the_endowment allocation $(\bunndowj)_{j_\in J}$.

Proof of Proposition \[prop:ssubst\] {#app:grossToNet}
====================================

We actually_prove_a stronger statement.

\[cl:marshallNetWeak\]_Suppose_that_agent $j$_demands at most_one_unit of_each_good and let $\bundow \in \Feas{j}$._A_utility function $\utilFn{j}$ is a  utility function_if for all money_endowments_$\numerdow > \feas{j},$ price_vectors $\p,$ and $0 <_\mu < \lambda$, whenever

1.  \[cond:start\]_$\dM{j}{\p}{\bunndow} =_\{\bun\}$,

