Content deleted Content added
deleted nonsensical claims about neutrality of algorithm |
Undo deletion of other user's talk page comment. Yes, it's misunderstood and wrong, but we don't censor talk page histories. |
||
Line 41:
:O(n*m) --[[Special:Contributions/128.175.226.103|128.175.226.103]] ([[User talk:128.175.226.103|talk]]) 21:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
{{GameTheoryProject}}
== The issue of optimal/pessimal choice ==
Frankly, this entire section is incorrect. A man will get his first choice of woman if and only if she likes him over all the other men who like her; and a woman will get her first choice of man, again, if and only if he likes her over all the other women he can choose from.
In both cases, the chance of getting a first choice depends entirely on the other person's agreement. If W X Y and Z all want A, and A likes W, then A will get W either way. If W X Y and Z are asking, A will select W from them; if W X Y and Z are being asked, A will go to W first.
Or, to put it in intuitive terms, if a woman doesn't get asked by the man she wants, then she'd have been jilted by him even if she'd been doing the asking and had got to him first.
The idea that this algorithm is somehow 'sexist' is sheer genderist nonsense. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.194.82.30|87.194.82.30]] ([[User talk:87.194.82.30|talk]]) 14:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== See also additions ==
| |||