A game theoretic approach to the toilet seat problem
Solving whether the toilet seat should be up or down when co-habiting.
"Criterion (2) seems plausible. It requires, however, that Marsha put the seat in the up position after performing a toilet operation some percentage of the time. No instance of this behaviour has ever been observed in recorded history; ergo this criterion can be ruled out. "
(
The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Fri 15 Jun 2012, 13:46,
Share,
Reply)
Alternatively,
get the fuck over it, its just a fucking toilet seat.
(, Fri 15 Jun 2012, 13:59, Share, Reply)
Also clearly the analysis supports the Man Position
(
The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Fri 15 Jun 2012, 14:06,
Share,
Reply)
This is awesome.
Top use of game theory.
(
prince-igor si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses, Fri 15 Jun 2012, 14:47,
Share,
Reply)
Hm.
Surely if John were to perform operation #1 while seated, the cost of C would effectively be reduced to zero, thereby negating the problem entirely?
(
Kerrisis There's someone in my head, but it's not me., Fri 15 Jun 2012, 15:01,
Share,
Reply)
Nice analysis but flawed
since it considers the incremental cost of moving from living alone to cohabitation. However this time period is trivial compared to the overall length of time of cohabitation. Therefore it makes sense to minimize the cost to each partner of toilet seat manouverings. It's easy to see that this can be done by Martha putting the toilet seat back up after her toilet operations. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to prove this rigorously.
(, Fri 15 Jun 2012, 16:11, Share, Reply)