Talk:Stable marriage problem: Difference between revisions
→Incorrect statements of incorrectness
(→Incorrect statements of incorrectness: Apologies and further explanation of the point I failed to make) |
|||
Line 132:
:Hi Rdm, First my apologies. I did not mean to upset, and I though the arguments for the other cases of where I thought the stability check was unclear might suffice. I should add that I too went and added to my original Python example to make it clear.
:An issue I had with other checks was that they didn't show ''why'' stability was violated without having to compute the stability criterion in your head, i.e. pairing A and B was better ''because'' A likes B better than present partner C and B likes A better than present partner D. I thought that just showing a pairing wasn't enough. again, it is just an opinion, and I am sure the site can come to a consensus, especially if others chip in. Does the task description need expansion? Or should we accept that a check routine that prints a pairing that could be shown to violate stability is enough? --[[User:Paddy3118|Paddy3118]] 15:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks for giving your perspective. This does indeed help me.
::Personally, I am happy with showing pairings where both partners would prefer each other over their previously asserted partners. That said, if you want additional information to be reported, I would be happy to provide it -- I just want that to be a part of the task. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] 18:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
| |||