Content deleted Content added
→Solutions for constrained problems: No, this seems to be harder than the original problem |
Choices of methaphorical gender |
||
Line 20:
* Your example is still just the Stable Marriage problem, using a list that excludes Alice, Bob, Claire and Dave. [[User:Tom Duff|Tom Duff]] 01:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
:: Not quite. Alice and Bob might not be each other's first choice, but their marriage needs to remain stable given the pairings we find for the rest of the people. In particular, each man that Alice likes better than Bob needs to be paired with a woman he likes better than Alice, ''and'' each woman that Bobs likes better than alice must be paired with a man she likes better than Bob. One can construct examples where this combined condition holds neither for the male-optimal nor for the female-optimal pairing of for the rest ignoring Alice and Bob, but still is possible for some ''third'' stable pairing. [[User:Henning Makholm|Henning Makholm]] 14:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
== Choices of methaphorical gender ==
A description of the "hospitals/residents problem" was recently added to the article. Whereas the main stable-marriage problem is symmetric in the two sexes, the "hospitals/residents problem" is not; one seeks an 1-to-n relation rather than a 1-to-1 one. I am a bit bothered that the article feels the need to explicitly assign the role of metaphorical "women" to one of the sides in the asymmetric problem (though I am pleasantly confused by the unconventional choice of ''women'' as the promiscuous sex). Can this way of stating the problem be supported by sources? And even if it can, is it really necessary to choose which is which just for explaining the problem? [[User:Henning Makholm|Henning Makholm]] 00:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
| |||