The paper "Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory" by David M. Kreps and Evan L. Porteus explores dynamic choice behavior under conditions of uncertainty, focusing on the timing of uncertainty resolution. The authors axiomatize and represent choice behavior where individuals distinguish between lotteries based on the times at which their uncertainty resolves. This representation cannot be captured by a single cardinal utility function on the vector of payoffs. The paper provides both descriptive and normative treatments of the problem, showing their equivalence. It introduces the concept of "temporal lotteries" and defines axioms for preferences on these lotteries, leading to a representation theorem. The authors also discuss the implications of assuming that individuals prefer earlier resolution of uncertainty to later resolution, and the conditions under which their approach reduces to the standard payoff vector approach. The paper concludes with a discussion on the philosophical differences between the two approaches and the mathematical assumptions underlying the analysis.The paper "Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty and Dynamic Choice Theory" by David M. Kreps and Evan L. Porteus explores dynamic choice behavior under conditions of uncertainty, focusing on the timing of uncertainty resolution. The authors axiomatize and represent choice behavior where individuals distinguish between lotteries based on the times at which their uncertainty resolves. This representation cannot be captured by a single cardinal utility function on the vector of payoffs. The paper provides both descriptive and normative treatments of the problem, showing their equivalence. It introduces the concept of "temporal lotteries" and defines axioms for preferences on these lotteries, leading to a representation theorem. The authors also discuss the implications of assuming that individuals prefer earlier resolution of uncertainty to later resolution, and the conditions under which their approach reduces to the standard payoff vector approach. The paper concludes with a discussion on the philosophical differences between the two approaches and the mathematical assumptions underlying the analysis.