3 ms·
[edit: not good, see next paragraph] Charlie did cut the pie in the first place, and he thought all the three pieces were equally good so he has to accept that
by kgwgk 8y ago
[edit: not good, see next paragraph] Charlie did cut the pie in the first place, and he thought all the three pieces were equally good so he has to accept that he got a fair share. It's irrelevant that he finds that Alice and Bob didn't share fairly the rest of the cake.
Edit: come on, are we really expected to read TFA or even to read carefully the first comment in the thread where it was clearly written “so that none of them envies other pieces” before commenting? (Seriously: I was obviously wrong. As punishment I leave my original comment here and now I’ll read the article five times.)
- sp332 8y agoAn allocation is envy-free if no agent would prefer to take another agent's allocation instead of his own. The problem they solved is much more difficult than the one you are describing.
- orthoxerox 8y agoIt's very relevant. Suppose the cake has 3 butter roses, and Charlie LOVES them. He cuts the cake into 3 pieces each with a rose on it, to get one in any case. Alice picks one piece, Bob picks another, Charlie gets the third. Now Bob thinks his piece is a bit too small compared to Alice's and transfers Alice's butter rose onto his piece. Alice either swaps or doesn't. Charlie now sees that either Alice or Bob has a cake piece with TWO butter roses and is VERY envious.
- tuco86 8y agoHe sees alice or bob with two butter roses on top of a smaller piece. Charlie has the first cut, so he can cut horizontally and make a tiny piece with 3 butter roses on top. he either gets his three butter roses or a bigger piece of cake, their relative value is still the same for him.