Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(11)
If no trade takes place both parties end up with a material payoff of zero.
Strict m-monotonicity requires that – holding the material payoff of the other person constant – the DM strictly prefers more own material payoff to less own material payoff.
If she is rational, she must believe that the expert behaves in a way that implies a material payoff of at least 0 for her.
An important feature of the EET is that within each of the two blocks the material payoff of the passive person in the asymmetric allocation is held constant, while the material payoff of the DM increases monotonically from one choice to the next.
The construction of the second alternative for the advantageous inequality block is similar, the only difference being the material payoff of the passive person for the alternative LEFT, which is now e−g (instead of e+g).
This is so because – if both the expert and the consumer accept the above reasoning – they believe that by burning the amount xϵ the consumer can guarantee a material payoff of at least V − P h − x ϵ.
Similar(49)
The material payoffs of one player in each game are based on X, while the the material payoffs of the other player are based on 1/X.
The first term of the utility function: (pi _{i}) represents the material payoffs of player i.
The first one is that the utility of a player increases as the material payoffs of the other members of her group increases.
If (lambda _{i}) and (theta _{i}) are positive for every player, when X becomes arbitrarily large, the material payoffs of players 2 and 3 dominate their reciprocal payoffs.
Also note that if X grows arbitrarily large in game Q(X), the material payoffs of players 2 and 3 dominate their reciprocal payoffs, while the reciprocal payoffs of players 1 and 4 dominate their material payoffs (as no player can change the material payoffs of their partners since they do not play in the same single game).
More suggestions(3)
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com