[flagged]
Even if philosophers one day become faux pas, I expect the dining philosophers problem wiki to keep the same formulation.
It reveals the bubble that I’m in more than anything, that the language stood out in the first place. I’m a man, and my partner is a man, basically no dinner I’ve been to in adult life has been boy-girl-boy-girl. If I was a mathematician this would never in a million years be the example I’d come up with.
This kind of seating where you alternate male and female but don't put couples next to each other is something that people have done and would like to do.
> I’m a man, and my partner is a man, basically no dinner I’ve been to in adult life has been boy-girl-boy-girl
Sure, if you're gay then don't be surprised to have not been at dinners where people do things that would make less sense with a gay couple. :D
My grandfather was apparently a poor dancer, but that was never one of my grandmother's problems, because in those days, one never danced with one's spouse.
1. (=nettoyage) housework
faire le ménage - to do the housework
une femme de ménage - a cleaning woman
faire des ménages - to work as a cleaner (in people's homes)
2. (=couple) couple
(=personnes mariées) married couple
se mettre en ménage avec - to set up house with
monter son ménage - to set up house
faire bon ménage avec - to get on well with
heureux en ménage - happily married
3. (Administration) (=famille) household
Aren’t you kind of just pointing out your personal feelings about a different cause of outrage? It certainly does not have any bearing on this mathematical problem or sequence.
I agree with the previous comment that it adds nothing but will further expand that it is someone else's imposition of their will and perspective on society, a form of forced ideology. I say while yes it adds nothing I think it is modern facism that seeks to control and silence anyone that would prefer to discuss alternatives to its supposed social validation. Or, to suggest, narcisism and histronic personality disorder are being elevated to a dysfunctional level using empathy as a weapon and that acceptance is the exact opposite of an appropriate response. And unlike the proponents I have spoken to thus far, I am at least willing to also say that is my opinion. Yes, based on some fact and my own personal experiences. But neither is this intersectional theory being explained and sxientifically supported.
What's so hard about having conversations like these is knowing a mere rhetorical statement from the other side can paint me or anyone else that might think differently than "the message" as racist, sexist, or whatever convenient negative moniker has been utilized by the proponents. Were we to engage in a real discussion about the underlying cause of the great generfication of society, we'd have to be open to going back to the origin and questioning (at this point) assumed outcomes. That is the willingness of a truly wise person who wishes to seek truth, whether improper or inconvenient. That kind of person is willing to be wrong on a path to becoming right. And I question whether there is anyone being a proponent of genderfication that would be willing to enagge in such dialog. They would have to be either confident or comfortable with admitting possible outcomes and alternatives have been discarded in favor of the progress of someone else's ideas. The problem is a very human one; assuming that admitting you're wrong means you lose power. The truly wise son't wish for or seek power in the first place. Only the truth.
Is your answer to my second (yes or no) question a yes or a no?
edit: Like sorry if I look stupid here, but can you quote and answer either of my questions? Do you feel like you answered either of them?
I do not think either comment is evidence of outrage (opposing your supposition) but the reply stating that the previous added nothing to the conversation, I agree somewhat with you, also adds nothing to the conversation.
What it does is offer the premise for a different conversation and in that regard both may add value. I appoligize for not making that point plain, I felt it was obvious.
Can you describe your ideal outcome of this exchange then?
Can you explain what specifically you're having trouble understanding?
Feel free to reference my previous questions as several answers to your question.
We can certainly agree on that. I put a lot of thought and effort into making my questions clear and specific when there is a particular piece of information that I’m trying to find.
I do not put a lot of stock into meandering exposition — I don’t understand how on earth “answering questions that weren’t asked and refusing to answer questions that were” could possibly be something that I could do with a straight face. I would be embarrassed to think that I could influence another person that way.
Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
Although in this particular case, I think you're in the minority in believing that the original comment was provocative.
“In combinatorial mathematics, the ménage problem or problème des ménages asks for the number of different ways in which it is possible to seat a set of couples, labeled “A_n” and “B_n” accordingly, at a round dining table so that the A and B alternate and no two couples are sat next to each other such that A_n = B_m”.
Idea stolen from this video on Gale-Shapley, which is also typically presented in a "gendered / heteronormative" way (but doesn't have to be): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fudb8DuzQlM.
I mean there are so many possible examples, right? Anything where you have pairs of partners.. bridge, tennis doubles, etc.
There are n pairs of people. Each pair has a type A person and a type B person. How many ways can they be arranged at a table such that the seats’ occupants alternate A,B,A,B etc and no one sits next to the person with whom they are paired.
If you are paired with someone of the same type, you don’t fit into the problem statement :). If everyone is the same type as everyone else, and everyone is allowed to sit next to anyone else except their partner, then the answer will be different.
We'll start from gender binary, and let's see where we go from here. First change: If you have n male/male couples, m female/female couples, and k male/female couples, how many seating orders can you produce.
This both makes a more complex mathematical problem (possibly it's even more interesting, YMMV) and it puts a bit more light on the underlying assumption of "pair by preference". For this example, we've gone to "pair by sexual preference", but I think we can agree that for most parties, that isn't the primary factor in seating your guests. (I mean, maybe it is for some people, but my life isn't that exciting ;)
So, this raises the question "if we don't pair by gender, what the heck do we pair by". Usually, if you throw a party with seating arrangements, you pair by "how well do these folks get along".
So, reformulated, given a set of people and a set of "good" seating neighbor combinations between them, how many valid seating combinations exist?
And from there, for bonus credit, let's realize that there is no binary in "good seating neighbor" either - so, for each pair of people, there exists instead a goodness-weight of their neighborhood. How do you compute the maximally good seating order?
(God, now I have flashbacks to wedding seat charts ;)
That sounds like a reasonably interesting problem, and I'd really like to hear if anybody tackled it.
Ménage exist, and have done since time immemorial. Any combination of human experience encompasses them, in all their variety. My mother assured me we had two in our family tree in prior generations, one very English inside the political establishment, the other a kabbalistic mishmash of obsession with the number 3 and the consequences thereof.
All I'm saying is that you could reformulate this to be less gendered. But, it would not actually Alter anything in the real world, just as Victorian niceness didn't end regency naughtiness, in all its glory.
Perhaps I'm old. Regency old, looking at a new cohort define mores that suit themselves better than mine, and that's no bad thing, if it happened when Victoria acceded to the throne, then why not now?