Difference between revisions of "Economic definition of true love"

From edegan.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Lauren
imported>Lauren
Line 1: Line 1:
 
==Current Availability==
 
==Current Availability==
  
Ed is '''infinitely unavailable''' for dating again at this time. Interested parties should (in no particular order):
+
Ed is '''infinitely unavailable''' for dating again at this time.  
*Give up, because you don't have a prayer.  My lady has already fulfilled all of the bellow bullet points to immeasurable perfection
 
*Be demonstrably female
 
*Be over the age of consent and subject the to standard rule: <math>\underline{Age} \ge \left(\frac{\overline{Age}}{2}\right)+7</math>
 
*Only use the work 'like' to express simile, agreeability or endearment
 
*Satify the requirements:
 
**<math>Height \ge \underline{Height}</math>
 
**<math>Weight \le \overline{Weight}</math>
 
**<math>|Heads| = 1</math>
 
**<math>|Tails| = 0</math>
 
*Have at least one graduate degree with a basis in a mathematical discipline
 
  
However, the above 'criteria' aside, if you genuinely believe:
+
It appears that:
  
:<math>p\left(You \cap The\,One \ne \{\empty\}\,|\,First\,Glance\right) \gg 0</math>
+
:<math>T=\{LB,EE\}</math>
  
then please stalk me at your earliest convenience.
+
(see below)
  
 
==True Love==
 
==True Love==

Revision as of 01:51, 10 November 2015

Current Availability

Ed is infinitely unavailable for dating again at this time.

It appears that:

[math]T=\{LB,EE\}[/math]

(see below)

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. Liz Lemon/Tina Fey), provided that we allow a mild abuse of notation so that [math]\{\emptyset\} \succ_{i} h[/math].

The Existence 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].

Proof:

Recall that a preference relation is rational if it is complete and transitive:

  1. Completeness: [math]\forall x,y \in X: \quad x \succsim y \;\or\; y \succsim x[/math]
  2. Transitivity: [math]\forall x,y,z \in X: \quad \mbox{if}\; \; x \succsim y \;\and\; y \succsim x \;\mbox{then}\; x \succsim z[/math]

Also recall the definition of the strict preference relation:

[math]x \succ y \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad x \succsim y \;\and\; y \not{\succsim} x[/math]

Then suppose:

  1. [math]\forall j \ne i \in H \quad i \succ_j h \quad \forall h\ne i \in H\quad\mbox{(Everyone loves Brad)}[/math]
  2. [math]\{\emptyset\} \succ_i h \quad \forall h \in H\quad\mbox{(Brad would rather be alone)}[/math]

Then [math]T = \{\emptyset\}[/math] Q.E.D.

The Pitt-Depp Addendum

Adding the constraint that 'everybody loves somebody', or equivalently that:

[math]\forall i \in H \quad \exists h \in H \;\mbox{s.t. }\; h \succ_i \{\emptyset\}[/math]

does not make rational preferences sufficient to guarantee that [math] T \ne \{\emptyset\}[/math].

Proof:

Suppose:

  1. [math]\forall k \ne i,j \in H \quad i \succ_j h \quad \forall h\ne i,k \in H\quad\mbox{(Everyone, except Johnny, loves Brad)}[/math]
  2. [math]j \succ_i h \quad \forall h\ne j \in H\quad\mbox{(Brad loves Johnny)}[/math]
  3. [math]\exists h' \ne i,j \; \mbox{s.t.}\; h'\succ_j h \quad \forall h\ne h',i \in H\quad\mbox{(Johnny loves his wife)}[/math]

Then [math]T = \{\emptyset\}[/math] Q.E.D.

Note: Objections to this proof on the grounds of the inclusion of Johnny Depp should be addressed to Matthew Rabin.