[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 13:45

I got the following forwarded to me through a long chain.  I thought
it would make good conversation material here - Steve

From: Ryunosuke Matsutake <MATSUTAKE@Sushi.Stanford.EDU>

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.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
211.1	Would you care to explain?	YODA::BARANSKI	Searching for Lowell Apartmentmates...	`Mon Feb 16 1987 16:04`	0
211.2	...Huh ??...	PRESTO::MITCHELL		`Mon Feb 16 1987 16:10`	1
	Say what ????
211.3		QUARK::LIONEL	Free advice is worth every cent	`Mon Feb 16 1987 17:18`	15
	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
211.4	Streaming Skimblarg Toar	GRECO::ANDERSON	Home of the Convoluted Brain	`Mon Feb 16 1987 21:10`	4
	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.
211.5	GIGO	CGHUB::CONNELLY	Eye Dr3 - Regnad Kcin	`Tue Feb 17 1987 01:25`	6
	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!!)...
211.6		APEHUB::STHILAIRE		`Tue Feb 17 1987 12:44`	5
	No wonder I haven't been very successful in love or marriage. I never could do math. Lorna
211.7		QUARK::LIONEL	Free advice is worth every cent	`Tue Feb 17 1987 13:19`	13
	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
211.8	Flip a coin!	MINAR::BISHOP		`Wed Feb 18 1987 23:56`	17
	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