Conversation Dating and Relationships
Helper icon Helpers: Chris2mates , LLstill , PrincessFruitBat


About us

Midsummer's Eve is a free online dating community - based around friendship, real meetups, real people, and real relationships. We've been online since 1999 and have twice won Radio 2's Web Site of the Day award. So why not join us for free and join in the discussion?

How To Marry The Right Girl

A Mathematical Solution

1 2 3 Next   Last  

Male
SQL  Male  Devon
18-May-2014 22:16 Message #4486672
Just viewed this.

"According to Martin Gardner, who described the formula (partly worked out earlier by others), the best way to proceed is to date the first 36.8 percent of the candidates. Don't marry any of them, but as soon as you meet a candidate who's better than the best of that first group — that's the one you choose!

Yes, the Very Best Candidate might show up in that first 36.8 percent — in which case you'll be stuck with second best, but still, if you like favorable odds, this is the best way to go."

Link to follow.

SQL
Male
SQL  Male  Devon
18-May-2014 22:18 Message #4486674
The link is:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/05/15/312537965/how-to-marry-the-right-girl-a-mathematical-solution

Actually the logic is very flawed but good for a laugh.

How would you like to be 'interviewed' for marriage?

SQL
Male
Argonaut  Male  Lancashire
19-May-2014 09:41 Message #4486723
That type of rationale would only stand a chance of working in a situation where there was no turning back (or going back to former interviewees).


As for being 'interviewed' for marriage - I thought dating was nothing more than an extended interview for marriage!




Jason.
Female
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd
19-May-2014 10:52 Message #4486736
Dores it work for finding husbands too or is it only women who can be reduced to a mathmatical formula?
Female
Minnie-the-Minx  Female  Hertfordshire
19-May-2014 13:26 Message #4486773
If I thought that I was being interviewed as marriage material, I think that I would run for the hills.
What's so terrible about spending time with someone that you like and seeing how it develops from there?
I do realise that it's tongue in cheek, but modern life is so geared towards performance and instant gratification that we don't seem to have any time any more to let things run their natural course.
Female
Lady  Female  North Yorkshire
19-May-2014 14:07 Message #4486786
If I thought that I was being interviewed as marriage material, I think that I would run for the hills.
Me too!

What's so terrible about spending time with someone that you like and seeing how it develops from there?
Nothing at all.

I prefer to spend more time just enjoying the moment and less time analysing it and trying to predict the future.
Female
RoseyCheeks  Female  Nottinghamshire
19-May-2014 16:26 Message #4486817
The Right Girl probably doesn't exist for a lot of people nowadays.
Female
Minnie-the-Minx  Female  Hertfordshire
19-May-2014 19:33 Message #4486864
ha ha good insight there from rosey
Male
Primitivistic  Male  South Yorkshire
20-May-2014 01:15 Message #4486958
Some people with more money than sense, regard marriage as a legal way to legitimise exploitation of said partner. Sex is on tap, thus such people regard it as a form of discounted service as opposed to paying for it continuously forcing one to form an intimate relationship with the cash machine or bank.

So marriage as a form of sex slavery with side benefits, as in a cook, cleaner, mother, child reared, and the rest, all at a discount, thus living in a gilded sort of cage.

Living with the most beautifully formed becomes after a time routine, and what was once thought of as the best, can be regarded as over rated, and maybe second best after a few years, as perceptions change.

Thus being selfish and rich allows one to get a bargain female, at a knock down price, with fringe benefits included.

As for what is best, well all women have the same biology just themed differently, so variation is mainly physical, as the important things, like cooking and all other behaviors are learned. So everyone is capable of adapting to circumstances, and in the darkness of the bedroom, even these attributes can disappear in the sensual delights we all contain withing our own biology's.
Male
Orson  Male  Tayside
20-May-2014 11:53 Message #4487011
Orson doesn't follow links. However by the mere title of the post Orson imagines the subject matter will inevitably be fascinating.



Orson.
Male
Hierophant  Male  East Anglia
20-May-2014 17:13 Message #4487062
I like the sound of sex on tap...
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-May-2014 21:21 Message #4487292
"Actually the logic is very flawed"

The logic is not flawed, and many mathematicians confirm that the maths is correct. But the situation for finding a marriage partner is unrealistic, because you don't know from the start how many possible partners (or "applicants") you will encounter.


"but good for a laugh."

It's actually a serious subject, with many variations having parallels in real life, such as choosing someone for one of a known number of applicants for a job if you have to decide at an interview for fear that they will accept a slightly later offer elsewhere.


This are my thoughts on what is going on here.

Suppose you want to select the "best" partner (or secretary or whatever) out of what you know from the start will be 20 applicants, who are in random order, and you don't know anything about the applicants until you meet each one. And suppose you can assign a unique score (say out of 1000) to each applicant, and you remember the highest score so far, but you don't know what the subsequent applicants will be like. After each meeting you must accept or reject the candidate.

Example 1:- If you accept the 1st applicant, then you have no idea how good or bad the other applicants are. You have only 1 in 20 = 5% chance of choosing the best applicant.

Example 2:- If you choose in advance to adopt the strategy to meet and reject say the first 3 applicants and to accept the first applicant after that to whom you give a higher score (out of 1000) than the highest of the first 3, (or you have to accept the 20th if none are higher), then the chance of you selecting the best applicant out of the 20 is fairly low, because the chances are that none of the first 3 will have a high score out of 1000, so you will probably accept someone (in the 4th to 20th) who has a not very high score.

Example 3:- If you choose in advance to adopt the strategy to meet and reject say the first 17 applicants, the chances of the score of one of the last 3 beating the highest of the 17 is not very high.

(Continued)
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-May-2014 21:23 Message #4487293
So what is the optimum number of applicants to meet and reject, before continuing to meet applicants and accepting the one with a score higher than the highest score in those rejected ones, (or accepting the 20th if none are higher)?

Probability theory says that the answer is approximately the number of applicants divided by 2.71828..., the approximation becoming more accurate as the number of applicants increases. (For say 20 applicants, this means rejecting the first 7 applicants.) This selects the best applicant in ~37% of trials. This is much a much better chance than in the above 3 examples.

This can be tested by Monte Carlo methods, i.e. using sets of randomly generated sets of scores.


"How would you like to be 'interviewed' for marriage?"

Not by the Monte Carlo method of a lady choosing me if I am playing roulette for high stakes and winning!
Female
bella111  Female  Devon
21-May-2014 21:44 Message #4487297
I couldn't get the link. But the idea of a partner involving a mathmatical formula leaves me cold,Where do emotions figure in all this?

Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-May-2014 22:01 Message #4487306
The formula to reject the first total number of applicants divided by 2.71828... then look for the first who is "better" than the best so far gives the best-chance strategy for finding for the appropriate person.

The maths don't do the emotions. You decide, on whatever criteria you like, on who you think is the "best" or most appropriate person.

Although I saw this thread a few days ago, I only looked up the link today, and I don't use such methods. Maybe Kepler should have chosen the most heavenly body!
Male
SQL  Male  Devon
21-May-2014 22:13 Message #4487310
Jeff the logic is flawed.

Just consider the extremes, one where there are 10 'candidates' and the best one is one of the first four 'candidates'. According to the 'logic' you do not choose any of the first four but the next one better than the best of the first four - in this case none!

The other extreme is where the first four are the worst and the next one (the one you would choose) is better than the best of the first four but worse than the rest of the 'candidates'- in this case you would choose the one fifth from the worse !!

The probability that the best 'candidate' is one of the first four is 40% for a completely random selection, thus you have a 40% chance of dismissing the best 'candidate' and not choosing any other.
In the second case the probability that the four worst 'candidates' are the first four 'candidates' (and the fifth 'candidate' is the worst of the remaining 'candidates')is much lower - I really can't be bothered to calculate it now. There are over 3 million possible orderings to work with.

SQL
Female
bella111  Female  Devon
21-May-2014 22:18 Message #4487311
Oh bloody hell you have all lost me me? lol
Female
Minnie-the-Minx  Female  Hertfordshire
21-May-2014 22:23 Message #4487315
" I like the sound of sex on tap... "

but be careful you don't slip on the soap
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-May-2014 22:31 Message #4487316
SQL,

I agree with you that if the "best" candidate is one of the first 4, then rejecting the first 4 you won't choose the "best". I also agree with your 2nd example.

But the essence of this whole matter is probability. I indicated this by my phrases "5% chance ... the chance of you selecting ... the chances of the score ... optimum number ... Probability theory says ... much better chance ... Monte Carlo methods ... randomly generated". You have also referred to probability. The probability of those 2 situations where I agree with you is lower than the probability of those situations not happening.

So the logic is correct - in situations where one knows in advance the total number of applicants.
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-May-2014 22:44 Message #4487318
Bella,

Suppose you were to interview applicants to be employed by you for 1 job. You interview each in turn in random order, and you don't know what the un-interviewed ones are like, but you are would like the "best" applicant, (not just any that can do the job).
Also suppose you had to inform each of them immediately after that inteview whether to accept them or reject them.

What strategy would give you the highest chance of selecting the "best" one?

For example, would it be a good strategy in advance to decide to hire the 1st applicant that you interview?

You might also be able to follow the logic in my examples 2 and 3.
Female
bella111  Female  Devon
21-May-2014 22:47 Message #4487319
No it is how you feel when meeting someone logic go out the window, it is something else attraction, like the person, like their grander theme of things.. u know what i want, an i know what you want ;-)
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-May-2014 23:07 Message #4487320
Bella,

I agree with you that you choose whoever attracts you for whatever reasons you like.

But the logic that I am describing assumes that you want the "best" person out of the applicants, however you define "best". There is a strategy you can decide before you meet anybody that gives you better chances than other strategies of getting what you want.

That strategy is to reject a certain number of applicants then choose the first one that you think is "better" than the "best" of the first ones you rejected, (or you accept the last if none are better). That strategy doesn't always work, but it works more often than other strategies.
Male
Primitivistic  Male  South Yorkshire
22-May-2014 00:37 Message #4487331
Well interesting nonsense, as the model is flawed. When one interviews anyone for anything JOB, PARTNER whatever, it all relies on people providing truthful responses.

So on the basis everyone is objective, truthful, and obviously secure, the model holds water, to a degree.

But people bend the truth, try to impress, lie, mislead and provide false evidence, which is very simple to do. We live in a competitive individualised culture, where selfishness and self serving are regarded as acceptable survival strategies.

With a partner, job applicant whatever one needs to find out how they work, how they operate, and how they operate under diverse conditions. So behaviors betray any inflationary claims, thus it takes time to expose truths, and not accepting lies as truth.


One can play the numbers game, having multiple partners at the same time, which can last years if on has the time and energy. So one knows how well they cook, care, love, lust, argue, have moods, period pains, illnesses, etc. and other things not disclosed at the time of the so called interview, or information gathering exercise.

Living in a culture predicated on personal greed and selfishness only a fool will take a persons word as a given, and women sadly often choose to believe the lies and deceptions of males, as most I have met, and doubtless on there would verify.

So there is trying to be clever, and being clever, just Like there is faith which people wish to believe in a collective insanity, and knowing in which knowledge and experience which continue to vaporise most of the pronouncements of the faithful. So many want to believe the words of a potential partner, and many are persuaded to take a chance, but time exposes falsehoods, and many on this site are party to such revelations.
Male
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
22-May-2014 09:42 Message #4487357
It isn't nonsense, and the model is not flawed by people lying.

Even though people lie, and we can all be very wrong in our judgements, it is still about choosing who we think is the "best" applicant. (We define "best" however we like, and we use whatever criteria we like.)


Another use of the same logic and maths is called the Sultan's Dowry problem. A sultan has 20 daughters, and he offers a different amount of money with each daughter for a suitor to marry one of them. Each daughter is so heavily covered with thick clothes and veils that she cannot be seen beneath them, and she is not allowed to talk with the suitor nor do any dancing etc.

The sultan doesn't reveal which daughter has which dowry. He lines up the daughters in random order, and the suitor has to ask the sultan how much money each daughter comes with, enquiring about only one at a time. Immediately after the sultan has answered, before the suitor can continue, the suitor has to decide whether to reject the daughter & money, or whether to accept them, (i.e. take the money and open the frocks - the 1960s TV game "Take Your Pick" when Michael Miles was host also included a problem of when to stop).

The suitor is only interested in trying to get the most money. What strategy is most likely to accomplish that?
Female
wonderoushen  Female  Gwynedd
22-May-2014 10:42 Message #4487359
'Love and marriage,
love and marriage,
go together like ice cream and cabbage..'

Jah Wobble

Why bother looking for marriage partners, get a dog or a cat for emotional company, its so much more rewarding and a lot less hassle and you never have problems over who does the housework or the remote control.

1 2 3 Next   Last  


 Back to top

 Help with conversations