ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) writes:
Also, I would appreciate if someone specified what exactly the goal function is.
Me too. This is an interesting problem, vaguely reminescent of the pie judging contests commonly used as examples of non-parametric statistics. Given two pies, (or two women), a judge can subjectively order them by tastiness, (or beauty), but there is no concept of an continuous metric in which the ratings of particular items are embedded. This makes it somewhat difficult (at least for me) to determine the function being maximized in this problem. Do we mean a strategy which gives the highest probability of choosing the most beautiful woman over all possible orderings? If not, then we need some way of saying whether we value N dates with the woman having rank I over M dates with the woman having rank J, which requires information the problem does not give us. The first case is ambiguous, since there are numerous strategies which differ only in the probability of selecting items having other than the highest rank, and the second implies the existence of some sort of metric. Indeed, what a person would regard as an strategy maximizing the chances of choosing the "best" item overall depends very much upon the choice of such a metric. If we have 20 women whose attractiveness is evenly spaced, one might proceed quite differently than if the top 18 were attractive and almost indistinguishable, and the other two had a contagious and fatal disease. If we make the leap of assigning the integers 1 to 20 to the individuals, and seek a strategy which maximizes the mean attractiveness over all possible orderings, then the problem can be solved by backtracking from the last choice made. This results in a variable threshold at each stage in which we select the current candidate if its rank in the items seen so far exceeds the threshold, and proceed if this is not the case. If we want a single partition point at which we choose the first item better than any item before the partition point, then 1/e seems believable, although I haven't personally worked out the math. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd@netcom.com $ via Finger. $