Talk:Fair division

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. ??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. WikiProject Game theory This article is part of WikiProject Game theory, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Game theory. We need your help! Join in | Fix a red link | Add content | Weigh in ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within game theory. WikiProject Mathematics     (Rated B-Class) Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics. Mathematics rating: B Class Low Priority  Field: Discrete mathematics Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. Geometry guy 21:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
This article has an assessment summary page.

Fair division was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: Error: invalid time

Fair division has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

[edit] Solomon?

Does King Solomon really belong here? I'm pretty sure it's original research to try and extend the fair division problem to babies, where the players' utility functions are, shall we say, degenerate. Would I be wrong in assuming that this hasn't appeared in the literature? Melchoir 02:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Melchoir. It's not original research, as it is appears in Brams's book "Fair division : from cake-cutting to dispute resolution", whose full reference should appear in the article, I guess.

best wishes

Robinh 11:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, no kidding. Okay! Melchoir 19:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

I don't see anything wrong with it. So a good article it is. --SeizureDog 08:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There is plenty wrong with it, no history of the study, so fails on 3a it addresses all major aspects of the topic. Very far for GA standard, barely B-class. --Salix alba (talk) 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge discussion

This should definitely be a separate article from envy-free. Though envy-free division is the most common goal of fair division, there are also other goals, such as maximizing the welfare of the worst off player.

I agree to keep the two separated. Envy-free is a different idea, although it is a stub at the moment. Sinas 14:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The envy-free division problem is the one that was really hard to solve and which Brams and Taylor found a general n-person solution for rather than the straight or 'proportionate' fair division problem. So parts of the current article on fair division should be put into a separate article. If that is done though 'fair division' should possibly be a general article outlining the various forms of fair-division problem with a short history and reference both envy-free division and proportionate division articles. The procedures described in the current fair division article do proportionate division and do not ensure envy-freeness (except for divide and choose where one can hardly avoid it). Special 3 or 4 person envy-free division procedures were found before Brams and Taylor and they should probably also be mentioned in the envy free article.  —Dmcq 23:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)