Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Abstract Example 2 in Qin (Soc Choice lf 45:1–17, 2015) provides a counter-example to Ryan (Soc Choice lf 42:193–213, 2014, Proposition 5). The erroneous step in the “proof” of Proposition 5 is the assumption that a choice function over opportunity sets is rationalizable whenever its base relation is justifiable (Lahiri, Soc Choice lf 21:117–129, 2003). Qin’s example shows this assumption to be false. In this Corrigendum  provide a corrected version of Ryan’s (Soc Choice lf 42:193–213, 2014, Proposition 5), based on results in Ryan (Soc Choice lf 42:193–213, 2014) and Qin (Soc Choice lf 45:1–17, 2015).
['Dan Qin', 'Matthew Ryan']
I am writing a research paper on a idea Rationalizability of Plott consistent choice functions: a corrigendum
[{"from": "human", "value": "I am writing a research paper on a idea Rationalizability of Plott consistent choice functions: a corrigendum"}, {"from": "gpt", "value": "Thats a unique idea.You should consider the following idea to enhance your idea so that it would impact uniquely: Abstract Example 2 in Qin (Soc Choice lf 45:1\u201317, 2015) provides a counter-example to Ryan (Soc Choice lf 42:193\u2013213, 2014, Proposition 5). The erroneous step in the \u201cproof\u201d of Proposition 5 is the assumption that a choice function over opportunity sets is rationalizable whenever its base relation is justifiable (Lahiri, Soc Choice lf 21:117\u2013129, 2003). Qin\u2019s example shows this assumption to be false. In this Corrigendum  provide a corrected version of Ryan\u2019s (Soc Choice lf 42:193\u2013213, 2014, Proposition 5), based on results in Ryan (Soc Choice lf 42:193\u2013213, 2014) and Qin (Soc Choice lf 45:1\u201317, 2015)."}]