Difference between revisions of "Economic definition of true love"

From edegan.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Ed
imported>Ed
Line 26: Line 26:
 
*The definition employs strict preferences. A polyamorous definition might allow weak preferences instead.
 
*The definition employs strict preferences. A polyamorous definition might allow weak preferences instead.
 
*The union with the empty set allows for people who would rather be alone (e.g. Tiny Fey), provided that we allow a mild abuse of notation so that <math>i \succ_{\{\emptyset\}} h</math>. The inclusion of the empty set is not necessary with weak preferences as then we can allow <math> i \succsim_i i</math> without violating the definition of the preference relation.
 
*The union with the empty set allows for people who would rather be alone (e.g. Tiny Fey), provided that we allow a mild abuse of notation so that <math>i \succ_{\{\emptyset\}} h</math>. The inclusion of the empty set is not necessary with weak preferences as then we can allow <math> i \succsim_i i</math> without violating the definition of the preference relation.
 +
 +
===The Existance of True Love===
 +
 +
Can we prove that <math> T \ne \{\emptyset\}<math> ?
 +
 +
====The Brad Pitt Problem====
 +
 +
Rational preferences aren't sufficient to guarantee that <math> T \ne \{\emptyset\}<math>.
 +
 +
Recall that a preference relation is rational if it is complete and transitive:
 +
#Completeness: <math>\forall x,y \in X: \quad x \succsim y \;\or\; y \succsim x 
 +
#Transitivity: <math>\forall x,y,z \in X: \quad \mbox{if}\; \quad x \succsim y \;\and\; y \succsim x \;\mbox{then}\; x \succsim z
 +
 +
Also recall the definition of the strict preference relation:
 +
:<math>x \succ y \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \quad x \succsim y \;\and\; y \nsuccsim x</math>

Revision as of 17:27, 25 February 2012

Current Availability

I'm afraid that Ed is currently unavailable for dating at this time. Exceptions to this can be made if you have a Math(s) Ph.D.

That said, if you genuinely believe:

[math]p\left(You \cap The\,One \ne \{\empty\}\,|\,First\,Glance\right) \gg 0[/math]

then please stop by my office (F533) at the Haas School of Business (map) at your earliest convenience.

Future Availability

Please check back for updates.

True Love

Definition

Let [math]H[/math] denote the set of all entities (perhaps Humans, though we might also include dogs, cats and horses, according to historical precedent).

Let [math]T[/math] denote the set of pairs of individuals who have True Love, such that:

[math]\forall\{i,j\} \in T: \quad (i \succ_j h \quad \forall h \ne i) \and (j \succ_i h \quad \forall h \ne j), \quad h \in H \cap \{\emptyset\}[/math]

Note that:

  • The definition employs strict preferences. A polyamorous definition might allow weak preferences instead.
  • The union with the empty set allows for people who would rather be alone (e.g. Tiny Fey), provided that we allow a mild abuse of notation so that [math]i \succ_{\{\emptyset\}} h[/math]. The inclusion of the empty set is not necessary with weak preferences as then we can allow [math] i \succsim_i i[/math] without violating the definition of the preference relation.

The Existance of True Love

Can we prove that [math] T \ne \{\emptyset\}\lt math\gt ? ====The Brad Pitt Problem==== Rational preferences aren't sufficient to guarantee that \lt math\gt T \ne \{\emptyset\}\lt math\gt . Recall that a preference relation is rational if it is complete and transitive: #Completeness: \lt math\gt \forall x,y \in X: \quad x \succsim y \;\or\; y \succsim x #Transitivity: \lt math\gt \forall x,y,z \in X: \quad \mbox{if}\; \quad x \succsim y \;\and\; y \succsim x \;\mbox{then}\; x \succsim z Also recall the definition of the strict preference relation: :\lt math\gt x \succ y \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \quad x \succsim y \;\and\; y \nsuccsim x[/math]