Content deleted Content added
→Choices of methaphorical gender: No, tjhe original problem is stated symmetrically |
|||
Line 32:
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)
:As far as I understand this, the only reason they are 'women' are because they are being proposed to. As such, they fit the role of the 'women' in the original problem. If you switched around the definitions of the roles of the men and women in the original problem, the roles would also be reversed in this problem. I think. --[[User:80.229.152.246|80.229.152.246]] 21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:: The original problem does not treat "men" and "women" differently. Only the particular ''solution'' algorithm that is described does. –[[User:Henning Makholm|Henning Makholm]] 22:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
== Order of computation ==
| |||