I think the author needs to delve deeper into the overall M costs. I also think he underestimates the extent to which Martha can maximize M (exponentially, in fact), and the cumulative loss that John ultimately will undergo if she does. Elevated Ms can have such consequences as: John's dinner ending up purposely burned; John sleeping on couch; John sleeping in dog house outside; John sleeping outside without doghouse (often with dog sleeping in warm bed formerly utilized by John); John de-housed on the street naked in the dead of winter; John divorced; John divorced and forced to pay high amounts of alimony (A).* *Note that the M caused by not accepting Strategy M can also increase A astronomically, resulting in a greater overall cost paid by John. **Also note that Martha does not seek increased M or A UNLESS Strategy M is rejected; her interests are merely concentrated on the toilet seat problem. Therefore, it is ultimately in both John and Martha's best interest to adopt Strategy M.
That's okay because now that Marsha has forced her way on John, John simply rebudgets for the added cost of putting the seat down by no longer using toilet paper for #1 and no longer washing his hands... the same hands that touch everything in the house Marsha also lives in. >:D
In Tom's scenario, the factor called "poetic justice," designated Pj, enters into the equation. Due to Pj, John contracts Montezuma's Revenge and dies in the hospital after consuming his own germs. The effects of Pj on Marsha, however, result in her marrying a tall, dark, handsome, brilliant, rich man whose devout mother raised him to adopt Strategy M. They both live happily ever after, with no mounting Ms in their relationship. :-)
A more equitable solution is possible, however it envolves a greater overall cost C, which will be denoted C'.
An axiom to the existance of the seat from which cost C is derived, is the seat lid, the average cost of operation is C'.
I propose a more equitable distributeion of costs, although a greater sum of all costs, through the inclusion of the operation of the lid in conjunction with all other operations. This will then require both John and Marsha to perform operation 2C' and John 2C+C' (do to the small values of C and C', C+C'~= C'.
Since the operation C' is performed twice with both functions #1 and #2 for both John and Marsha, they have nearly equal costs for all toilet functions.*
Porism: Having the lid down looks better than when the lid is up, while the toilet is not in a mode of operation.
* Nota Bene: Marsha still has a slightly lesser cost, so she can still think she is ahead, and when you use double coupons.... she saves even more!!
I think the author needs to delve deeper into the overall M costs. I also think he underestimates the extent to which Martha can maximize M (exponentially, in fact), and the cumulative loss that John ultimately will undergo if she does. Elevated Ms can have such consequences as:
ReplyDeleteJohn's dinner ending up purposely burned;
John sleeping on couch;
John sleeping in dog house outside;
John sleeping outside without doghouse (often with dog sleeping in warm bed formerly utilized by John);
John de-housed on the street naked in the dead of winter;
John divorced;
John divorced and forced to pay high amounts of alimony (A).*
*Note that the M caused by not accepting Strategy M can also increase A astronomically, resulting in a greater overall cost paid by John.
**Also note that Martha does not seek increased M or A UNLESS Strategy M is rejected; her interests are merely concentrated on the toilet seat problem. Therefore, it is ultimately in both John and Martha's best interest to adopt Strategy M.
* I meant "Marsha."
ReplyDeleteCari, your mathematical analysis of the problem is brilliant. As one mathematician to another, I heartily agree with your conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThat's okay because now that Marsha has forced her way on John, John simply rebudgets for the added cost of putting the seat down by no longer using toilet paper for #1 and no longer washing his hands... the same hands that touch everything in the house Marsha also lives in. >:D
ReplyDeleteIn Tom's scenario, the factor called "poetic justice," designated Pj, enters into the equation. Due to Pj, John contracts Montezuma's Revenge and dies in the hospital after consuming his own germs. The effects of Pj on Marsha, however, result in her marrying a tall, dark, handsome, brilliant, rich man whose devout mother raised him to adopt Strategy M. They both live happily ever after, with no mounting Ms in their relationship. :-)
ReplyDeleteA more equitable solution is possible, however it envolves a greater overall cost C, which will be denoted C'.
ReplyDeleteAn axiom to the existance of the seat from which cost C is derived, is the seat lid, the average cost of operation is C'.
I propose a more equitable distributeion of costs, although a greater sum of all costs, through the inclusion of the operation of the lid in conjunction with all other operations. This will then require both John and Marsha to perform operation 2C' and John 2C+C' (do to the small values of C and C', C+C'~= C'.
Since the operation C' is performed twice with both functions #1 and #2 for both John and Marsha, they have nearly equal costs for all toilet functions.*
Porism: Having the lid down looks better than when the lid is up, while the toilet is not in a mode of operation.
* Nota Bene: Marsha still has a slightly lesser cost, so she can still think she is ahead, and when you use double coupons.... she saves even more!!
~The Blue Fox