Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The stable marriage problem and modern dating

arvarik.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 224 posts

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#71

Post by ambicapter »

YetAnotherMatt wrote: post #37

One factor that I didn't see addressed in the post which does make a significant impact is that men in general rate women more similarly than women rate men. See for example: https://www.marketingcharts.com/demographics-and-audiences/m... As such, male advantage is probably a lot lower in the real world, if (hyperbolic) every woman has a different man on nr 1 of their preference list, and every man has the same woman…

> One factor that I didn't see addressed in the post which does make a significant impact is that men in general rate women more similarly than women rate men.

That is addressed halfway through the post. Methinks you didn't actually read the article.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#72

Post by zenhack »

anikan_vader wrote: post #11

>> The first graph demonstrates the O(n²) complexity of the algorithm. We can see that as the community grows larger, even by a small amount, the amount of iterations it takes to solve the matching problem grows exponentially. This statement is contradictory. Probably the author is using "exponentially" to mean quick growth. I suppose this is alright in common parlance, but I find it disturbing when people describe a…

Yeah, I'm willing to let this slide coming from regular folk in everyday conversations, but when you're writing a blog post about algorithms and you just said it was O(n^2)... this is a situation where I think it's reasonable to expect someone to hold to the technical meaning of a term.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#73

Post by tzs »

The article links to another article [1] at the same site for a description of the stable marriage problem. I don't think the description is right.

Here is the description:

> Find a stable matching between two equally sized sets of elements where each element has a preference ranking of all the elements in the opposite set.

> A matching is stable if there are no unstable pairings.

> An unstable pairing happens in the following example:

> A and B from one set gets paired with 1 and 2 respectively from the other set. However, B prefers 1 and A prefers 2.

Let's arbitrarily call the lettered set the males and the numbered set the females.

That definition of an unstable pairing cannot possibly be correct, because it is defined entirely in terms of male preferences.

For a pairing to be unstable you need a male who prefers a different female, and you need that female to prefer him over her current male. Only then are they both willing to ditch the current partner to form the new pair.

A correct definition of unstable pairing must involved conditions on both male preferences and female preferences.

It should be something like this:

> A and B from one set gets paired with 1 and 2 respectively from the other set. However, B prefers 1 over 2 and 1 prefers B over A.

[1] https://www.arvarik.com/visiting-the-stable-marriage-problem

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#75

Post by the_cat_kittles »

related: nrmp kidney match (al roth is kind of a guru on this subject)

i tried to apply the results and thinking about matching and stability to a many to many matching problem between students and courses offered. i basically just wrote a bunch of bullshit in latex but it was fun. i cant remember now but i think there is often a set of stable matches, although maybe it can be empty- and finding them requires pretty savage computation. i remember some of the newest papers were just big nasty algorithms for finding the set of stable matches.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#76

Post by watwut »

jschwartzi wrote: post #65
watwut wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because long term marriage is a lot about your tendency to create long term emotional ties to people. It is also about your willingness to think about relationship itself and put work on it. It is also about selection, but much more about ability to weed out abusive people and selfish people and so on. Of course also compatibility, clean freak will never be happy with messy person. And those abilities form a lot in c…

Those abilities are trainable, especially with therapy.

Yes, but you won't train them by dating a lot of people. Dating a lot of people trains you that people leave, it will teach you that strong relationship hurts more when it breaks.

Also, if you dated a lot of people who were genuinly unsuitable for long term relationship, issue really is either your selection or what you signal to good prospective partners. Like, abusers pick up certain types and stable guys/gals avoid certain types.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#78

Post by greyswan »

YetAnotherMatt wrote: post #48
poorman wrote: post #40

Having worked on a dating app startup with a 2m seed (it's since pivoted to a brewery run by active gang members), I can say the problem of dating is looked at horribly wrong. People assume dating is about finding the person "most compatible" with you. Compatibility is an illusion. Most people tend to date until they have an idea of "what they don't want". Once they know and they find someone who checks the boxes, th…

Do you have any data to back that up that you can share? I don't mean to call you out, it could very well be the case, people date in rather not-understandable ways to me. What you're saying does not match my experience though. Quite a few friends of mine have dated only very few people before getting married. Anecdotally, the marriages that seem to do the best are the marriages in which both partners did not have a…

Dating more isn't the only way to gather information about what you don't (or do) want.

People that have dated few people might be more likely to share a similar approach to relationships.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#79

Post by klyrs »

EGreg wrote: post #27
titanomachy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the participants are free to say "I refuse to date anyone of (or not of) race X under any circumstances" then there's no solution in the general case.

No solution to what

I think they're referring to the "stable marriage problem" where every person is gonna get married come hell or high water, no takebacks. That problem cannot be solved in general if individuals can give a hard no.

Re: The stable marriage problem and modern dating

#80

Post by toby »

watwut wrote: post #57
YetAnotherMatt wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any data to back that up that you can share? I don't mean to call you out, it could very well be the case, people date in rather not-understandable ways to me. What you're saying does not match my experience though. Quite a few friends of mine have dated only very few people before getting married. Anecdotally, the marriages that seem to do the best are the marriages in which both partners did not have a…

Because long term marriage is a lot about your tendency to create long term emotional ties to people. It is also about your willingness to think about relationship itself and put work on it. It is also about selection, but much more about ability to weed out abusive people and selfish people and so on. Of course also compatibility, clean freak will never be happy with messy person. And those abilities form a lot in c…

I agree with this generally. For most people I know in happy marriages it's not because they figured out exactly what they wanted and found "the one" -- as much as they love their partners there are probably a lot of people they would have been happy with.
Post reply on HN