World Scientific
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at customercare@wspc.com for any enquiries.

A CONSIDERATION OF DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS OF FUZZY COVERING RELATIONS

    https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793005710001736Cited by:1 (Source: Crossref)

    Fuzzy spatial models map a substantial degree of preference indifference. It has been shown that different definitions of covering result in different elements in the uncovered set when preference indifference is present. We consider several of the most frequently used definitions of covering relations found in the literature. The first definition that we examine yields an uncovered set, some of the elements of which are not Pareto efficient. Given that there is no reason to expect a set of players comprising a majority to settle for a Pareto deficient outcome, the remainder of the paper considers the ability of alternative definitions to avoid such a result.