Talk:Selfridge–Conway procedure

Game theory Low‑importance

	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 inGame theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Game theoryTemplate:WikiProject Game theorygame theory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Some comments as requested

The title will be put in anyway. Don't need a line at the top giving the title.

You're right. Done. viebel (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more justification of notability would be good. Was it the first or good for some other reason?

Working on it. viebel (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think having both A' and A* confuses things. Just one of them for the trimmed piece would be better and just say trimmings or T for the trimmings.

The problem with "T" is that it doesn't refer to A. The problem with "the trimmings" is that it is long.

I think either would be better than what's there. One can get away with A1 A2 and A' A" is just about workable but two different symbols just makes it difficult.

If you're saying Player 1 etc better say Player P rather than just P.

OK. viebel (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's always the problem of saying 'he', some people think it is sexism.

Should I say 'she'? viebel (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't saying that. Some people do that and other mix them and other's say they and others try just avoiding saying such pronounds.

When a fair division procedure says 'player 1 divides it into three pieces he considers of equal size' the 'equal size' is a statement about the optimal strategy of player 1 that needs justification in the analysis.

I think that deferring that to analysis would confuse the reader. viebel (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying to take it out of the description of the procedure. It's just you have to be aware that either player is allowed to do something different and the only consequence should be that the one who deviates from the optimum may not achieve a fair share by their own valuation. It should not affect the other players. Showing that is part of the analysis.

I can't say I'm keen on bolding words. Bolding normally emans in wikipedia it is a term being defined.

how would you stylize the player names? viebel (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I woul;d style tham at all.

Have you see the Manual of style? The mathematics project also has its own MOS:MATH, I'd have much preferred Mathmos :) Dmcq (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific. viebel (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out places which you might look at if you're looking to writing good articles. I think one of them says something about the he she problem. Dmcq (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for animated procedure

I think that the article would be easier to understand if there's an animated graphics that shows how the cake was divided into three pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.96.73 (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to players as "PA" and "PB"

Considering that the pieces are also named A and B, I am wondering if there's not a clearer way to refer to players PA and PB. 66.188.133.44 (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section "shorter analysis" removed

I have deleted the section "Shorter analysis" because the analysis is incorrect. Just because a player believes himself to have at lear 1/3 does not guarantee that he is nor envious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.59.127.126 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]