I would have hoped you reached the second sentence before skimming! I define what I mean (and what I take previous authors to mean) by ‘coherence theorems’ there.
I think your title might be causing some unnecessary consternation. “You don’t need to maximise utility to avoid domination” or something like that might have avoided a bit of confusion.
I would have hoped you reached the second sentence before skimming! I define what I mean (and what I take previous authors to mean) by ‘coherence theorems’ there.
I think your title might be causing some unnecessary consternation. “You don’t need to maximise utility to avoid domination” or something like that might have avoided a bit of confusion.
Don’t get me wrong, I just think this is an extremely uncharitable and confusing way of presenting your work.
I think it’s otherwise a great collection of coherence theorems and the discussion about completeness seems alright, though I haven’t read closely.
Using ‘coherence theorems’ with a meaning that is as standard as any, and explaining that meaning within two sentences, seems fine to me.