I used to like the old slashdot conversations where someone would call shenanigans and a user with that name would show up and post. That and the lowest uid posturing where inevitably someone with a single digit uid would post. There's not so much of that kind of thing on HN, I understand it's a different kind of discussion but it's fun sometimes
I had the same thought as OP. Not outraged or anything, I just find it interesting.
It reveals the bubble that I’m in more than anything, that the language stood out in the first place. I’m a man, and my partner is a man, basically no dinner I’ve been to in adult life has been boy-girl-boy-girl. If I was a mathematician this would never in a million years be the example I’d come up with.
1. (=nettoyage) housework
faire le ménage - to do the housework
une femme de ménage - a cleaning woman
faire des ménages - to work as a cleaner (in people's homes)
2. (=couple) couple
(=personnes mariées) married couple
se mettre en ménage avec - to set up house with
monter son ménage - to set up house
faire bon ménage avec - to get on well with
heureux en ménage - happily married
3. (Administration) (=famille) household
This association with the French word that happens to be my surname is something that I've encountered more since moving from the UK to the US. Possibly due to the proximity to France resulting in a lot more UK people learning French in school than those who grow up in the US?
You can state this abstractly but it wouldn't have a clear purpose.
This kind of seating where you alternate male and female but don't put couples next to each other is something that people have done and would like to do.
> I’m a man, and my partner is a man, basically no dinner I’ve been to in adult life has been boy-girl-boy-girl
Sure, if you're gay then don't be surprised to have not been at dinners where people do things that would make less sense with a gay couple. :D
My grandfather was apparently a poor dancer, but that was never one of my grandmother's problems, because in those days, one never danced with one's spouse.
OK, I’m not going for cheap outrage points. I’ve read the Wikipedia article. I am honestly curious if there is a reason we still present the problem this way, or if we could just change it up a bit in its presentation.
“In combinatorial mathematics, the ménage problem or problème des ménages asks for the number of different ways in which it is possible to seat a set of couples, labeled “A_n” and “B_n” accordingly, at a round dining table so that the A and B alternate and no two couples are sat next to each other such that A_n = B_m”.
And this improves the problem statement how exactly? You are just doing the "parent 1" "parent 2" gymnastics that get (deservedly) mocked and (unfortunately) weaponized at any possible occasion.
You're organising the office dinner party and each employee has brought exactly one spouse (who is not an employee). You wish to seat the attendees alternating employees and spouses, perhaps so that the spouses feel maximally included and nobody starts a work-related conversation.
Sure. Seating Pokemon trainers and Pokemon, where each trainer brings their Pokemon.
Idea stolen from this video on Gale-Shapley, which is also typically presented in a "gendered / heteronormative" way (but doesn't have to be): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fudb8DuzQlM.
I mean there are so many possible examples, right? Anything where you have pairs of partners.. bridge, tennis doubles, etc.
Regardless of intent, it pointlessly and unconstructively derails the conversation into an uninteresting and well trod aside that has nothing to do with the topic
Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead.
For a reader clicking on the post thinking there's going to be a good discussion, they get the first post forcing gender politics irrelevantly into the discussion, then a bunch of stupid follow-up meta discussion. Even if they can collapse it, it's already ruined the thread
I think you are the only one of the few people that perceives it as hostile. The rest of us are legitimately curious. If it's a big problem for you, you could collapse the comment thread or report it and see if Dang will take action.
I think there is a reasonable argument that the etymology is probably the most interesting thing here. The rest of it is a pretty generic graph/combinatronics theory problem. I mean it is interesting as far graph theory is, but its pretty generic example. Just look at the comments - not a single comment here about the actual concept. I am doubtful it would have been posted here without the provocative name.
some languages distinguishes words or phrases between male and female. French for example is very strict about it. Thai as well. I don't understand why you are upset.
Person wasn't neccesarily advocating for the change, just wondering why it is the way it is. I don't think its an unreasonable thought and the naming of things and the history thereof can certainly be interesting discussion points.
It seems like it would be at least mildly complicated to reformulate, and a reformulation would be pretty fundamentally hetero-something. For example:
There are n pairs of people. Each pair has a type A person and a type B person. How many ways can they be arranged at a table such that the seats’ occupants alternate A,B,A,B etc and no one sits next to the person with whom they are paired.
If you are paired with someone of the same type, you don’t fit into the problem statement :). If everyone is the same type as everyone else, and everyone is allowed to sit next to anyone else except their partner, then the answer will be different.
Out of curiosity (and I mean this sincerely), could you explain how if I were to copy and paste this post as a response to this post it wouldn’t apply equally?
Aren’t you kind of just pointing out your personal feelings about a different cause of outrage? It certainly does not have any bearing on this mathematical problem or sequence.
If a comment is off-topic, and bringing gendered language into a thread about mathematics surely is, then it’s OK to point out that it’s off-topic. In an ideal world everybody would read the guidelines, but practically we all need a reminder every now and then.
I didn’t ask if this was within the rules, I asked if this post about pointless outrage points was in and of itself a post about pointless outrage points. I worded it in a way that is easily answered in a yes or no fashion.
Neither are you referring to the topic and as such adding to the conversation. At least I'll be up front for other readers and say neither will I.
I agree with the previous comment that it adds nothing but will further expand that it is someone else's imposition of their will and perspective on society, a form of forced ideology. I say while yes it adds nothing I think it is modern facism that seeks to control and silence anyone that would prefer to discuss alternatives to its supposed social validation. Or, to suggest, narcisism and histronic personality disorder are being elevated to a dysfunctional level using empathy as a weapon and that acceptance is the exact opposite of an appropriate response. And unlike the proponents I have spoken to thus far, I am at least willing to also say that is my opinion. Yes, based on some fact and my own personal experiences. But neither is this intersectional theory being explained and sxientifically supported.
What's so hard about having conversations like these is knowing a mere rhetorical statement from the other side can paint me or anyone else that might think differently than "the message" as racist, sexist, or whatever convenient negative moniker has been utilized by the proponents. Were we to engage in a real discussion about the underlying cause of the great generfication of society, we'd have to be open to going back to the origin and questioning (at this point) assumed outcomes. That is the willingness of a truly wise person who wishes to seek truth, whether improper or inconvenient. That kind of person is willing to be wrong on a path to becoming right. And I question whether there is anyone being a proponent of genderfication that would be willing to enagge in such dialog. They would have to be either confident or comfortable with admitting possible outcomes and alternatives have been discarded in favor of the progress of someone else's ideas. The problem is a very human one; assuming that admitting you're wrong means you lose power. The truly wise son't wish for or seek power in the first place. Only the truth.
I will not answer your questions the way you framed them but try to respond from my own perspective because I personally think you framed them without regard to promoting good discourse.
I do not think either comment is evidence of outrage (opposing your supposition) but the reply stating that the previous added nothing to the conversation, I agree somewhat with you, also adds nothing to the conversation.
What it does is offer the premise for a different conversation and in that regard both may add value. I appoligize for not making that point plain, I felt it was obvious.
Yes, I can explain what I’m having trouble understanding! In fact, I’ve posted unanswered questions in this very thread detailing the things that I would like to know!
Feel free to reference my previous questions as several answers to your question.
Perhaps you and I have different styles of communication and this isn't working so well so I will see myself along. Thank you for your time and I hope you get the answers you seek in the style you understand. I do appreciate you responding and inteoducing me to your style.
> Perhaps you and I have different styles of communication
We can certainly agree on that. I put a lot of thought and effort into making my questions clear and specific when there is a particular piece of information that I’m trying to find.
I do not put a lot of stock into meandering exposition — I don’t understand how on earth “answering questions that weren’t asked and refusing to answer questions that were” could possibly be something that I could do with a straight face. I would be embarrassed to think that I could influence another person that way.
Honestly if I'm judging on "who's looking for something to be outraged about" it is you. At least OP's comment can be taken to mean "how else could this problem be applied". Yours is just airing grievances. I also noticed you didn't chastise the user with the name "Menage" who simply gave a joke reply "I prefer to be the problem and not the solution". If you've chosen to be out here on boxing day policing who is on topic and who isn't, why'd you miss that one?
Let's reformulate this in a mathsy way, because the underlying question is interesting.
We'll start from gender binary, and let's see where we go from here. First change: If you have n male/male couples, m female/female couples, and k male/female couples, how many seating orders can you produce.
This both makes a more complex mathematical problem (possibly it's even more interesting, YMMV) and it puts a bit more light on the underlying assumption of "pair by preference". For this example, we've gone to "pair by sexual preference", but I think we can agree that for most parties, that isn't the primary factor in seating your guests. (I mean, maybe it is for some people, but my life isn't that exciting ;)
So, this raises the question "if we don't pair by gender, what the heck do we pair by". Usually, if you throw a party with seating arrangements, you pair by "how well do these folks get along".
So, reformulated, given a set of people and a set of "good" seating neighbor combinations between them, how many valid seating combinations exist?
And from there, for bonus credit, let's realize that there is no binary in "good seating neighbor" either - so, for each pair of people, there exists instead a goodness-weight of their neighborhood. How do you compute the maximally good seating order?
(God, now I have flashbacks to wedding seat charts ;)
That sounds like a reasonably interesting problem, and I'd really like to hear if anybody tackled it.
Most wiki pages on problems, theorems, and so forth seem to stick to historicity of the formulation. For example, the traveling salesman problem generalizes far beyond salesmen or bridges, but as originally framed, it was expressed in those terms. Therefore wiki describes it in those terms, instead of reformulating.
Even if philosophers one day become faux pas, I expect the dining philosophers problem wiki to keep the same formulation.
Unlike the stable matching/marriage problem, the menage problem doesn't make much sense when you remove the idea of gender and its social presumptions. Maybe employers and interns looking to find next year'a internship?
Victorians found their regency forbears hugely embarrassing because they admitted their affairs, and bastard offspring existed.
Ménage exist, and have done since time immemorial. Any combination of human experience encompasses them, in all their variety. My mother assured me we had two in our family tree in prior generations, one very English inside the political establishment, the other a kabbalistic mishmash of obsession with the number 3 and the consequences thereof.
All I'm saying is that you could reformulate this to be less gendered. But, it would not actually Alter anything in the real world, just as Victorian niceness didn't end regency naughtiness, in all its glory.
Perhaps I'm old. Regency old, looking at a new cohort define mores that suit themselves better than mine, and that's no bad thing, if it happened when Victoria acceded to the throne, then why not now?
I don't believe so. I worked out the permutations for n = 3 and, accounting for rotations, you only get 2:
[0, 3, 4, 1, 2, 5]
[0, 5, 2, 1, 4, 3].
Of course, you get the expected answer of 12 if you multiply by 6.
Actually, no. The number depends on the position at the table—rotations are distinct.
For 3 couples:
Mrs A must sit between Mr B and Mr C. Mr B can be on her left or her right, 2 possibilities. After those two seats are chosen, everyone else’s seat is determined.
But there are 6 places Mrs A might sit. Hence, for 3 couples there are 12=2x6 possible seatings, including rotations.
This [1] site addresses your intuition. The number of seatings up to rotations is the total number of seatings, divided by the number of seats (2x number of couples).
70 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 121 ms ] threadIt reveals the bubble that I’m in more than anything, that the language stood out in the first place. I’m a man, and my partner is a man, basically no dinner I’ve been to in adult life has been boy-girl-boy-girl. If I was a mathematician this would never in a million years be the example I’d come up with.
This kind of seating where you alternate male and female but don't put couples next to each other is something that people have done and would like to do.
> I’m a man, and my partner is a man, basically no dinner I’ve been to in adult life has been boy-girl-boy-girl
Sure, if you're gay then don't be surprised to have not been at dinners where people do things that would make less sense with a gay couple. :D
My grandfather was apparently a poor dancer, but that was never one of my grandmother's problems, because in those days, one never danced with one's spouse.
“In combinatorial mathematics, the ménage problem or problème des ménages asks for the number of different ways in which it is possible to seat a set of couples, labeled “A_n” and “B_n” accordingly, at a round dining table so that the A and B alternate and no two couples are sat next to each other such that A_n = B_m”.
Idea stolen from this video on Gale-Shapley, which is also typically presented in a "gendered / heteronormative" way (but doesn't have to be): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fudb8DuzQlM.
I mean there are so many possible examples, right? Anything where you have pairs of partners.. bridge, tennis doubles, etc.
Although in this particular case, I think you're in the minority in believing that the original comment was provocative.
There are n pairs of people. Each pair has a type A person and a type B person. How many ways can they be arranged at a table such that the seats’ occupants alternate A,B,A,B etc and no one sits next to the person with whom they are paired.
If you are paired with someone of the same type, you don’t fit into the problem statement :). If everyone is the same type as everyone else, and everyone is allowed to sit next to anyone else except their partner, then the answer will be different.
Aren’t you kind of just pointing out your personal feelings about a different cause of outrage? It certainly does not have any bearing on this mathematical problem or sequence.
I agree with the previous comment that it adds nothing but will further expand that it is someone else's imposition of their will and perspective on society, a form of forced ideology. I say while yes it adds nothing I think it is modern facism that seeks to control and silence anyone that would prefer to discuss alternatives to its supposed social validation. Or, to suggest, narcisism and histronic personality disorder are being elevated to a dysfunctional level using empathy as a weapon and that acceptance is the exact opposite of an appropriate response. And unlike the proponents I have spoken to thus far, I am at least willing to also say that is my opinion. Yes, based on some fact and my own personal experiences. But neither is this intersectional theory being explained and sxientifically supported.
What's so hard about having conversations like these is knowing a mere rhetorical statement from the other side can paint me or anyone else that might think differently than "the message" as racist, sexist, or whatever convenient negative moniker has been utilized by the proponents. Were we to engage in a real discussion about the underlying cause of the great generfication of society, we'd have to be open to going back to the origin and questioning (at this point) assumed outcomes. That is the willingness of a truly wise person who wishes to seek truth, whether improper or inconvenient. That kind of person is willing to be wrong on a path to becoming right. And I question whether there is anyone being a proponent of genderfication that would be willing to enagge in such dialog. They would have to be either confident or comfortable with admitting possible outcomes and alternatives have been discarded in favor of the progress of someone else's ideas. The problem is a very human one; assuming that admitting you're wrong means you lose power. The truly wise son't wish for or seek power in the first place. Only the truth.
Is your answer to my second (yes or no) question a yes or a no?
edit: Like sorry if I look stupid here, but can you quote and answer either of my questions? Do you feel like you answered either of them?
I do not think either comment is evidence of outrage (opposing your supposition) but the reply stating that the previous added nothing to the conversation, I agree somewhat with you, also adds nothing to the conversation.
What it does is offer the premise for a different conversation and in that regard both may add value. I appoligize for not making that point plain, I felt it was obvious.
Can you describe your ideal outcome of this exchange then?
Can you explain what specifically you're having trouble understanding?
Feel free to reference my previous questions as several answers to your question.
We can certainly agree on that. I put a lot of thought and effort into making my questions clear and specific when there is a particular piece of information that I’m trying to find.
I do not put a lot of stock into meandering exposition — I don’t understand how on earth “answering questions that weren’t asked and refusing to answer questions that were” could possibly be something that I could do with a straight face. I would be embarrassed to think that I could influence another person that way.
We'll start from gender binary, and let's see where we go from here. First change: If you have n male/male couples, m female/female couples, and k male/female couples, how many seating orders can you produce.
This both makes a more complex mathematical problem (possibly it's even more interesting, YMMV) and it puts a bit more light on the underlying assumption of "pair by preference". For this example, we've gone to "pair by sexual preference", but I think we can agree that for most parties, that isn't the primary factor in seating your guests. (I mean, maybe it is for some people, but my life isn't that exciting ;)
So, this raises the question "if we don't pair by gender, what the heck do we pair by". Usually, if you throw a party with seating arrangements, you pair by "how well do these folks get along".
So, reformulated, given a set of people and a set of "good" seating neighbor combinations between them, how many valid seating combinations exist?
And from there, for bonus credit, let's realize that there is no binary in "good seating neighbor" either - so, for each pair of people, there exists instead a goodness-weight of their neighborhood. How do you compute the maximally good seating order?
(God, now I have flashbacks to wedding seat charts ;)
That sounds like a reasonably interesting problem, and I'd really like to hear if anybody tackled it.
Even if philosophers one day become faux pas, I expect the dining philosophers problem wiki to keep the same formulation.
Ménage exist, and have done since time immemorial. Any combination of human experience encompasses them, in all their variety. My mother assured me we had two in our family tree in prior generations, one very English inside the political establishment, the other a kabbalistic mishmash of obsession with the number 3 and the consequences thereof.
All I'm saying is that you could reformulate this to be less gendered. But, it would not actually Alter anything in the real world, just as Victorian niceness didn't end regency naughtiness, in all its glory.
Perhaps I'm old. Regency old, looking at a new cohort define mores that suit themselves better than mine, and that's no bad thing, if it happened when Victoria acceded to the throne, then why not now?
Problems that could arise from classic Seinfeld: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEMWMsy0DgU
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
For 3 couples:
Mrs A must sit between Mr B and Mr C. Mr B can be on her left or her right, 2 possibilities. After those two seats are chosen, everyone else’s seat is determined.
But there are 6 places Mrs A might sit. Hence, for 3 couples there are 12=2x6 possible seatings, including rotations.
This [1] site addresses your intuition. The number of seatings up to rotations is the total number of seatings, divided by the number of seats (2x number of couples).
[1] http://oeis.org/wiki/M%C3%A9nage_problem