[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference quark::human_relations-v1

Title:What's all this fuss about 'sax and violins'?
Notice:Archived V1 - Current conference is QUARK::HUMAN_RELATIONS
Moderator:ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI
Created:Fri May 09 1986
Last Modified:Wed Jun 26 1996
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1327
Total number of notes:28298

211.0. "Statistically Optimal Marriage Strategy" by QUARK::LIONEL (Free advice is worth every cent) Mon Feb 16 1987 10:45

I got the following forwarded to me through a long chain.  I thought
it would make good conversation material here - Steve

From: Ryunosuke Matsutake <[email protected]>

Recently I got quite an interesting mail from my friend at CMU.  This was
posted on CMU's bboard, and he forwarded it to me.  Then, I'll forward this
to Stanford's bboard.  It is reported that Doug Tygar invented this formula.



Provably statiscally optimal marriage strategy
----------------------------------------------

Let A = your current age
    B = your life expectency
    C = average age of potential mates - your age
    D = average life expectancy of potential mates
    E = average length of courtship
    F = average number of courtships carried on simultaneously
    G = number of years until courtships cease
    H = probability of courtship resulting in marriage proposal
    I = time from proposal to marriage
    e = 2.718...

If D-C < B, let x = D - C - A - I; otherwise let x = B - A - I
Let n = GFH/E.  (If n <= 2, accept your first proposal)

We assume that you can compare any two potential mates that you have
seen according to marriage worth, that marginal marriage worth is determined
inversely according to the time since courtship began and proportional to
rank of mate versus other potential mates.  The worth of spinsterhood is 0.
Assume that you must respond to each proposal before knowing later proposals.
We assume the probability of receiving proposals is uniformly distributed
between now and G.  We reject the possibility of divorce or remarriage.

THEOREM  If at time t you receive a marriage proposal from suitor i,
ranked r compared with suitors 1 through i-1:

REJECT if (x-t) log [(x-t)/e] > 
		x log (x/e) / e
    or if (x-t)log[(x-t)/e]/(x[log(x/e)]-(x-t)log[(x-t)/e]-x(log[x/e])(1-1/e)) >
		  rx log (x/e)/e(x-t)(log[(x-t)/e]-1) 
ACCEPT otherwise.

(Follow this algorithm and your matrimonial happiness will be maximized.)

CORROLARY  Don't marry your first girlfriend or boyfriend, unless you expect
at most one boyfriend or girlfriend.

-------
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
211.1Would you care to explain?YODA::BARANSKISearching for Lowell Apartmentmates...Mon Feb 16 1987 13:040
211.2...Huh ??...PRESTO::MITCHELLMon Feb 16 1987 13:101
    Say what ????
211.3QUARK::LIONELFree advice is worth every centMon Feb 16 1987 14:1815
    Gee, it seems straightforward enough to me! :-)  I can't explain,
    really, since I didn't invent this, but it would appear that a
    formula is given for calculating a "rating factor" for a given
    suitor (suitess? is there a feminine form of this word?)  The
    rating tells you whether or not you should accept the marriage
    offer.
    
    I've seen similar formulas for deciding which restaurant to eat
    as you come to them, with the idea that you won't go back to one
    that you passed up earlier.  I haven't tried running through this
    particular formula with numbers from a real situation, and I
    notice that some of the variables are very subjective, but - what
    the hey - it's just for fun!
    
    				Steve
211.4Streaming Skimblarg ToarGRECO::ANDERSONHome of the Convoluted BrainMon Feb 16 1987 18:104
    I dun no.  It's a bit hard for me to accept.  The formula doesn't
    account for the Curvalinear Quard Zirdling Affect exhibited as the
    slibwark integral.  You better check your arithmetic.
211.5GIGOCGHUB::CONNELLYEye Dr3 - Regnad KcinMon Feb 16 1987 22:256
No divorce or remarriage allowed, huh?  Spinsterhood = 0?

Sounds like good old white-picket-fence Elmtown USA circa
1910.  Ronnie and Nancy would love it (oops, wait!  that
was no DIVORCE and no REMARRIAGE!  sheesh!!)...
211.6APEHUB::STHILAIRETue Feb 17 1987 09:445
    No wonder I haven't been very successful in love or marriage.  I
    never could do math.
    
    Lorna
211.7QUARK::LIONELFree advice is worth every centTue Feb 17 1987 10:1913
    Yeesh - some people have no sense of humor!  I suppose, though,
    that it wouldn't be funny to those who hadn't slogged through
    probability and statistics in college.
    
    I don't even pretend to understand the formulas, but I do think
    I know what the gist is.  Even so, I am pretty sure that the person
    who wrote this did not mean it seriously, but was simply taking
    a common statistics concept and applying it (incompletely) to
    marriage.  I don't think there's supposed to be any great social
    comment in here.  In fact, there's really NO social comment, other
    than the stuff about "spinsterhood=0".
    
    					Steve
211.8Flip a coin!MINAR::BISHOPWed Feb 18 1987 20:5617
    Basically, what the formula does is figure out how many more proposals
    you are likely to get (that's "n").  If you are not likely to get
    any more, you better take any you get.
    
    If you are likely to get more, then when you get one, you try to
    figure out whether, if you let this one go, you have a better than
    even chance of a better proposal later.  The longer you have before
    you have to stop courting, the better it is for you to wait.
    
    The major winning strategy is to increase "F" and "H" while decreasing
    "E".
    
    Given that you can refuse a proposal, this strategy is really aimed
    mostly at women--for men, waiting until she proposes takes too long.
    Proposing is a more tricky decision.
    
    					-John Bishop