Content deleted Content added
DewiMorgan (talk | contribs) →If only all math articles were so accessible!: new section |
|||
Line 53:
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-->
There's clearly a different choice process with both actors, so it's not surprising there are different outcomes, but it's clear this section needs work. The definition of Pessimal at the very least needs work. It's clear that a woman can get her preferred choice (say, she's his first and he's her first). This one example renders the statement, "Thus women will always prefer another match in any stable pairing over their match in a male-optimal pairing." clearly false. It may be that the only way it could deviate from a mutual-optimality it towards male-optimality, but that's not what is said. Also, there are some at least very confusing statements such as "Also consider an arbitrary stable pairing S, where M and W are not paired. Because G is male-optimal, M prefers W to his match in S." Male-optimality would reduce the chance that M perfers someone he is not matched with, and certainly not force it. The section should be rewritten using a simple 2 or three person ranking to make these claims explicit. It should be removed in the mean time.
== See also additions ==
| |||