Mathematical Definition of Love
Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates
Mathematical Definition of Love
My friend and I were discussing if love could be defined mathematically, and we agreed on this definition (requires some knowledge of game theory) 
A loves B iff A would rationally choose to never betray B in any prisoner's dilemma. Or, depending on your definition, that no prisoner's dilemma can be formed involving A and B.
The idea being, A would value B's utility as greater than or equal to his own utility, and thus would never pick an option that sacrifices summed utility for his own. In an ideal situation, if A and B loved each other, then they would always cooperate.
I feel like this could be made into an xkcd comic pretty easily  Girl: "I love you", Guy: "I would never betray you in the prisoner's dilemma"
A loves B iff A would rationally choose to never betray B in any prisoner's dilemma. Or, depending on your definition, that no prisoner's dilemma can be formed involving A and B.
The idea being, A would value B's utility as greater than or equal to his own utility, and thus would never pick an option that sacrifices summed utility for his own. In an ideal situation, if A and B loved each other, then they would always cooperate.
I feel like this could be made into an xkcd comic pretty easily  Girl: "I love you", Guy: "I would never betray you in the prisoner's dilemma"
 skeptical scientist
 closedminded spiritualist
 Posts: 6142
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
 Location: San Francisco
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
I think it's clear that people value others' outcomes as well as their own  all else being equal, most people will make the choice which most benefits others, even if they are affected the same either way. Similarly, most people would happily give up a dollar so that a friend could get a hundred bucks. So your idea is to define love based on how much an individual's utility function is affected by outcomes to others. This seems reasonable  I'm much more likely to do little things to make a significant other's life more comfortable, compared to, say, a roommate  but probably not sufficiently subtle to really capture love. For example, a really generous person and a really selfish person may both be capable of love, and both be more generous towards their loved ones than friends or strangers, but the baseline generosity is so different that the generous individual may be more generous to strangers than the selfish one is to loved ones. Also, there's a lot more to love than simply valuing another's happiness.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
skeptical scientist wrote:Also, there's a lot more to love than simply valuing another's happiness.
I actually don't think there is. There might be more to a relationship, like finding someone that fits you well, but I define "love" as simply valuing someone else's happiness as greater than or equal to your own.
 Cleverbeans
 Posts: 1378
 Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
Adamah wrote:I define "love" as simply valuing someone else's happiness as greater than or equal to your own.
Between that and the game theory, I see a career with Halmark in your future.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."  Abraham Lincoln
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
I think the prisoner's dilemma actually does a pretty good job of defining what love is, but I'd quibble with your definition.
First of all, you used the term "rational." Very often, love is not at all rational. I think love is better seen as something that causes one to ignore or suppress the payoff matrix than as something that modifies it.
Second, I disagree that love is a binary situation. For example, let's say the Temptation is 3.9, the Reward is 4, the Punishment is 4.1, and the Sucker's payoff is 4.2, where the unit involved is "years of freedom". (It's a oneshot game.) Then it wouldn't take too much to get me to cooperate. In fact, I might even cooperate with a total stranger, just out of a sense of it being the decent thing to do. If you change the numbers to T = 0, R = 1, P = 2, S = 5, it would take a pretty good degree of trust for me to cooperate. With T = 0, R = 1, P = 1.01, S = 5, there would be only a couple of people with whom I would cooperate. And if the game were T = 0, R = 5, P = 5.0000001, S = 100, it might be enough to break up an awful lot of committed relationships! (At least in the sense that one or more participants would defect.) So there are various strengths of love that can be distinguished in this way (there might be more than one dimension too).
First of all, you used the term "rational." Very often, love is not at all rational. I think love is better seen as something that causes one to ignore or suppress the payoff matrix than as something that modifies it.
Second, I disagree that love is a binary situation. For example, let's say the Temptation is 3.9, the Reward is 4, the Punishment is 4.1, and the Sucker's payoff is 4.2, where the unit involved is "years of freedom". (It's a oneshot game.) Then it wouldn't take too much to get me to cooperate. In fact, I might even cooperate with a total stranger, just out of a sense of it being the decent thing to do. If you change the numbers to T = 0, R = 1, P = 2, S = 5, it would take a pretty good degree of trust for me to cooperate. With T = 0, R = 1, P = 1.01, S = 5, there would be only a couple of people with whom I would cooperate. And if the game were T = 0, R = 5, P = 5.0000001, S = 100, it might be enough to break up an awful lot of committed relationships! (At least in the sense that one or more participants would defect.) So there are various strengths of love that can be distinguished in this way (there might be more than one dimension too).
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.
 poxic
 Eloquently Prismatic
 Posts: 4756
 Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
 Location: Left coast of Canada
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
What, you want to leave it all anecdotal and illdefined? That just can't be allowed.
After all, love is widely acknowledged to be less than three, so we know already that it's not imaginary (does not have i as a factor) and (if an integer) is not a positive square, cube, or any other (integer) exponent product. Aside from 1, which can lead us to all sorts of potentially autophilic conclusions. Or zero, which is not by definition positive, and does not lend itself well to multiplication.
/backing carefully out of the numbers board now
//sorry for the artsstudent tangent
After all, love is widely acknowledged to be less than three, so we know already that it's not imaginary (does not have i as a factor) and (if an integer) is not a positive square, cube, or any other (integer) exponent product. Aside from 1, which can lead us to all sorts of potentially autophilic conclusions. Or zero, which is not by definition positive, and does not lend itself well to multiplication.
/backing carefully out of the numbers board now
//sorry for the artsstudent tangent
The Supreme Ethical Rule: Act so as to elicit the best in others and thereby in thyself.
 Felix Adler, professor, lecturer, and reformer (13 Aug 18511933)
 Felix Adler, professor, lecturer, and reformer (13 Aug 18511933)
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26823
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
We're discussing math in the math forum. What's *your* problem?xkcdfan wrote:WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
He's in love.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
poxic wrote:What, you want to leave it all anecdotal and illdefined? That just can't be allowed.
After all, love is widely acknowledged to be less than three, so we know already that it's not imaginary (does not have i as a factor) and (if an integer) is not a positive square, cube, or any other (integer) exponent product. Aside from 1, which can lead us to all sorts of potentially autophilic conclusions. Or zero, which is not by definition positive, and does not lend itself well to multiplication.
/backing carefully out of the numbers board now
//sorry for the artsstudent tangent
Not only do we know that love is less than 3, we also know that [imath]\varepsilon[/imath] is greater than love. And, this being true for an arbitrary [imath]\varepsilon[/imath] > 0, we are forced to conclude that love = 0, that is, love is nothing at all or love is less than 0 and is actually, contrary to popular, quite negative.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
Kurushimi wrote:poxic wrote:What, you want to leave it all anecdotal and illdefined? That just can't be allowed.
After all, love is widely acknowledged to be less than three, so we know already that it's not imaginary (does not have i as a factor) and (if an integer) is not a positive square, cube, or any other (integer) exponent product. Aside from 1, which can lead us to all sorts of potentially autophilic conclusions. Or zero, which is not by definition positive, and does not lend itself well to multiplication.
Not only do we know that love is less than 3, we also know that [imath]\varepsilon[/imath] is greater than love. And, this being true for an arbitrary [imath]\varepsilon[/imath] > 0, we are forced to conclude that love = 0, that is, love is nothing at all or love is less than 0 and is actually, contrary to popular, quite negative.
I love your work, poxic.
You provide a convincing argument, Kurushimi, but bear in mind, the normal approach is useless here.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
poxic wrote:After all, love is widely acknowledged to be less than three
We also know 1 to be the loneliest number. Because love is greater than loneliness, we can thus conclude that 1<love<3.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
So the odds are that love = 2.graatz wrote:poxic wrote:After all, love is widely acknowledged to be less than three
We also know 1 to be the loneliest number. Because love is greater than loneliness, we can thus conclude that 1<love<3.
Take that, polyamorists!
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
++$_ wrote:So the odds are that love = 2.graatz wrote:poxic wrote:After all, love is widely acknowledged to be less than three
We also know 1 to be the loneliest number. Because love is greater than loneliness, we can thus conclude that 1<love<3.
Actually, the odds are stacked pretty well against that It's almost certain that 1<love<2 or 2<love<3 unless we can deduce more about it.
 skeptical scientist
 closedminded spiritualist
 Posts: 6142
 Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 6:09 am UTC
 Location: San Francisco
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
graatz wrote:Actually, the odds are stacked pretty well against that It's almost certain that 1<love<2 or 2<love<3 unless we can deduce more about it.
Like, perhaps, the fact that it's natural?
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
It occurs to me that in many situations, [imath]love = {1 \over 1}[/imath].
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
"It's just a Relation", said the logician.
Yakk wrote:hey look, the algorithm is a FSM. Thus, by his noodly appendage, QED
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
++$_ wrote:Second, I disagree that love is a binary situation. For example, let's say the Temptation is 3.9, the Reward is 4, the Punishment is 4.1, and the Sucker's payoff is 4.2, where the unit involved is "years of freedom". (It's a oneshot game.) Then it wouldn't take too much to get me to cooperate. In fact, I might even cooperate with a total stranger, just out of a sense of it being the decent thing to do. If you change the numbers to T = 0, R = 1, P = 2, S = 5, it would take a pretty good degree of trust for me to cooperate. With T = 0, R = 1, P = 1.01, S = 5, there would be only a couple of people with whom I would cooperate. And if the game were T = 0, R = 5, P = 5.0000001, S = 100, it might be enough to break up an awful lot of committed relationships! (At least in the sense that one or more participants would defect.) So there are various strengths of love that can be distinguished in this way (there might be more than one dimension too).
Ah, but that's the point of the word "any". Just because you'd cooperate with someone in a particular prisoner's dilemma (such as the first example you gave) doesn't mean you love them. To be in love with someone, you must choose to cooperate in ANY prisoner's dilemma, including the last one. If you don't, then it's something less than love. Maybe "friendship" perhaps.
The key is that instead of looking to maximize your utility, you're looking to maximize the sum of your utility and your partner's utility since you value your partner's happiness equal to your own. Thus, by definition of the prisoner's dilemma, you would always choose to cooperate since this would maximize your combined utility, regardless of what the individual payoffs might be.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
graatz wrote:++$_ wrote:So the odds are that love = 2.graatz wrote:poxic wrote:After all, love is widely acknowledged to be less than three
We also know 1 to be the loneliest number. Because love is greater than loneliness, we can thus conclude that 1<love<3.
Actually, the odds are stacked pretty well against that It's almost certain that 1<love<2 or 2<love<3 unless we can deduce more about it.
I agree that love = 2, however ...
2<Love+Tequila<5 (on a good day)
Also ...
Love+TooMuchTime=Assets(.55)
Seriously, how would you write the equation that expresses the Net Present Value of love over a 13year investment period? And, what is the unit of measure?
Thanks!

 Posts: 4
 Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:41 am UTC
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
I suppose your definition works well enough for A and B, but have you thought about situations involving more than two people, for instance children?

 Posts: 548
 Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 am UTC
 Contact:
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
Back to the OP's thoughts 
If a person A's reason for living is Y(h,x)  where x is the happiness of person B, and h are other factors of the A's life  then A is in love with B if (dY/dx)/Y > k for all x and some constant k > 0.
In other words, you NEED the other person's love. A lot. If they get happier by some amount, then you get exponentially happier. The only problem is, if you have a negative reason for living, then their happiness makes you sadder. But we can safely assume that, once Y hits zero, you'll commit suicide  or shortly thereafter or before.
If a person A's reason for living is Y(h,x)  where x is the happiness of person B, and h are other factors of the A's life  then A is in love with B if (dY/dx)/Y > k for all x and some constant k > 0.
In other words, you NEED the other person's love. A lot. If they get happier by some amount, then you get exponentially happier. The only problem is, if you have a negative reason for living, then their happiness makes you sadder. But we can safely assume that, once Y hits zero, you'll commit suicide  or shortly thereafter or before.
<signature content="" style="tag:html;" overused meta />
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
Pvt. Parts wrote:I suppose your definition works well enough for A and B, but have you thought about situations involving more than two people, for instance children?
I think it's safe to assume that your partner would factor that into their happiness, and since you are dependent upon that, you will then be dependent on those factors as well.
Yakk wrote:hey look, the algorithm is a FSM. Thus, by his noodly appendage, QED
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
I'd try not to think of love as a point that can be found, but rather a relation between points.
For example, I'm much of the opinion that 1 is in love with itself, because it always looks out for itself, and it's the multiplicative identity, so take that for what it's worth.
What the relation "love" would technically entail, I have no clue, are we going to keep it real and not look at those overly romantic or unnecessarily complex and fantastic numbers in the complex plane?
This relation, "love" must depend wholly on the points in question.
For example, I'm much of the opinion that 1 is in love with itself, because it always looks out for itself, and it's the multiplicative identity, so take that for what it's worth.
What the relation "love" would technically entail, I have no clue, are we going to keep it real and not look at those overly romantic or unnecessarily complex and fantastic numbers in the complex plane?
This relation, "love" must depend wholly on the points in question.
I have a pair of pants.

 Posts: 20
 Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
squareroot wrote:Back to the OP's thoughts 
If a person A's reason for living is Y(h,x)  where x is the happiness of person B, and h are other factors of the A's life  then A is in love with B if (dY/dx)/Y > k for all x and some constant k > 0.
In other words, you NEED the other person's love. A lot. If they get happier by some amount, then you get exponentially happier. The only problem is, if you have a negative reason for living, then their happiness makes you sadder. But we can safely assume that, once Y hits zero, you'll commit suicide  or shortly thereafter or before.
Impossible. Mutual love does not appear to cause a constant (possibly wrong word, it's that or continuous, take your pick!) exponential increase in happiness, as would be expected were this true.
I'm pretty sure my definition (in terms of game theory) is somewhere along the lines of an individual's happiness becoming the mean of their own happiness and their partners happiness.
Essentially, using your notation
Y(h,x) = (h+x)/2
In cases of mutual love, Y(h,x)=Y(x,h) so feedback isn't a problem anyway.
I'd put friendship/general relationships as Y(h,x) = (h+nx)/n+1 for 0<n<1
with the strength of the friendship proportional to n
A rather interesting implication of this, is that it allows enemity to exist (1<n<0) on the same spectrum as both love and friendship.
I think I've put too much thought into this, I already overthink emotions  I'd take this further (i.e. some kind of comment on happiness becoming undefined as an individual becomes an absolute enemy (n > 1), ideas on involvement of multiple people, etc), but I'm gonna sleep instead.

 Posts: 548
 Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 am UTC
 Contact:
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
I actually like the idea of it reaching singularity... maybe something like Y(h,x)=(h+nx)/(n+1)(1n) would work well. Here, a good friend might be around n=0.3, someone you just married around n=0.95, someone whom you mildly dislike/are jealous of n=0.2. If someone was at n=1 (positive side), it would equate to someone who is so much worse than every other thing in your life that you want to kill yourself. At n=1, as long as they're happy, you have no need to do anything else in life. The problem with this expression is that it destroys the idea of the weighted arithmetic mean... but I think it might be more accurate, considering infinite happiness and all...
I just remembered  another good equation for love is (x^2 + y^2  1)^3  x^2*y^3 = 0. This is to be interpreted totally different from the previous equations, though..
I just remembered  another good equation for love is (x^2 + y^2  1)^3  x^2*y^3 = 0. This is to be interpreted totally different from the previous equations, though..
<signature content="" style="tag:html;" overused meta />
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
TheAlmightyEgg wrote:squareroot wrote:Back to the OP's thoughts 
If a person A's reason for living is Y(h,x)  where x is the happiness of person B, and h are other factors of the A's life  then A is in love with B if (dY/dx)/Y > k for all x and some constant k > 0.
In other words, you NEED the other person's love. A lot. If they get happier by some amount, then you get exponentially happier. The only problem is, if you have a negative reason for living, then their happiness makes you sadder. But we can safely assume that, once Y hits zero, you'll commit suicide  or shortly thereafter or before.
Impossible. Mutual love does not appear to cause a constant (possibly wrong word, it's that or continuous, take your pick!) exponential increase in happiness, as would be expected were this true.
I'm pretty sure my definition (in terms of game theory) is somewhere along the lines of an individual's happiness becoming the mean of their own happiness and their partners happiness.
Essentially, using your notation
Y(h,x) = (h+x)/2
In cases of mutual love, Y(h,x)=Y(x,h) so feedback isn't a problem anyway.
I'd put friendship/general relationships as Y(h,x) = (h+nx)/n+1 for 0<n<1
with the strength of the friendship proportional to n
A rather interesting implication of this, is that it allows enemity to exist (1<n<0) on the same spectrum as both love and friendship.
I think I've put too much thought into this, I already overthink emotions  I'd take this further (i.e. some kind of comment on happiness becoming undefined as an individual becomes an absolute enemy (n > 1), ideas on involvement of multiple people, etc), but I'm gonna sleep instead.
Yeah, that's the definition I go with. An ideal love relationship would value each person's happiness equally (i.e, n = 1). An interesting thing to consider  what if n > 1? That is, you value the other person's happiness more than your own? And what if n > 1 for both people?

 Posts: 548
 Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:04 am UTC
 Contact:
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
Well, it depends whether or not "n" in the formula is explicitly the other person's happiness (corresponding to your h), or their will to live (corresponding to your Y). If it's their will to live, with j= their base happiness, n1=your love for them, and n2=their love for you, it's an easy equation to solve:
Y=(h+n1 x)/(n1 + 1)
x=(j+n2 Y)/(n2 + 1)
Y=(h + n1*j/(n2 + 1))/(n1 + 1) + Y*n2/(n2 + 1)
(h + n1*j/(n2 + 1))/(n1 + 1) = Y*(1  n2/(n2 + 1))
= Y*( 1/(n2 + 1) )
Y = (n2+1)*(h + n1*j/(n2 + 1))/(n1 + 1)
Y = (n2*h + n1*j + h)/(n1 + 1)
So, it actually turns out you can still write out each person's will to live without it going insane for n>1. This is because it's taking the average, and not actually growing without bound. An interesting consequence of the formula is that, if they love you more than you love them by a large factor, (that is, n2>>n1) your will to live is mostly dependent on your happiness, growing without bound proportionally to their love for you. And if (n1 ~~ 1, n2 ~~ 1), so neither of your feelings is exceptional, your own happiness is still predominant.
Of course, if x is to be understood as their general happiness  corresponding to your h  there will be no feedback systems. Unless, of course, "unrequited love" factors into your general h variable.
Y=(h+n1 x)/(n1 + 1)
x=(j+n2 Y)/(n2 + 1)
Y=(h + n1*j/(n2 + 1))/(n1 + 1) + Y*n2/(n2 + 1)
(h + n1*j/(n2 + 1))/(n1 + 1) = Y*(1  n2/(n2 + 1))
= Y*( 1/(n2 + 1) )
Y = (n2+1)*(h + n1*j/(n2 + 1))/(n1 + 1)
Y = (n2*h + n1*j + h)/(n1 + 1)
So, it actually turns out you can still write out each person's will to live without it going insane for n>1. This is because it's taking the average, and not actually growing without bound. An interesting consequence of the formula is that, if they love you more than you love them by a large factor, (that is, n2>>n1) your will to live is mostly dependent on your happiness, growing without bound proportionally to their love for you. And if (n1 ~~ 1, n2 ~~ 1), so neither of your feelings is exceptional, your own happiness is still predominant.
Of course, if x is to be understood as their general happiness  corresponding to your h  there will be no feedback systems. Unless, of course, "unrequited love" factors into your general h variable.
<signature content="" style="tag:html;" overused meta />
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Good fucking job Will Yu, you found me  __ 
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
Adamah wrote:skeptical scientist wrote:Also, there's a lot more to love than simply valuing another's happiness.
I actually don't think there is. There might be more to a relationship, like finding someone that fits you well, but I define "love" as simply valuing someone else's happiness as greater than or equal to your own.
I personally think that one could act in all prisoner's dilemmas in some way by principle. And one could have all those lovefeelings without actually going in for whatever reason. It's a mixed complex.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
squareroot wrote:An interesting consequence of the formula is that, if they love you more than you love them by a large factor, (that is, n2>>n1) your will to live is mostly dependent on your happiness, growing without bound proportionally to their love for you
its almost creepy how well this coresponds to what is happpening to me rigth now .... it really sucks if n2>>n1(edit: I meant n1>>n2).
also it seems as if your happynes is in an invers relation to their love for you if n1<0 which would mean the best way to handle rejection is to get n1 below 0
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
I just want to say that there is no such thing in real life of either the type of love defined in the OP or in TheAlmightyEgg's recent post. There is always a Prisoner's Dilemma type game that will cause a defection in at least one person in the relationship, and the only time when two partners love each other equally is that brief period between when one's love is on the rise and the other's dominance is on the rise (and love on the decline). Actually, it is possible that the love is never equal if the loveovertime function is as discontinous as I believe it to be.
 gmalivuk
 GNU Terry Pratchett
 Posts: 26823
 Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
 Location: Here and There
 Contact:
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
Someone just have a messy breakup?

 Posts: 9
 Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:43 am UTC
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
quintopia wrote:...and the only time when two partners love each other equally is that brief period between when one's love is on the rise and the other's dominance is on the rise (and love on the decline).
This just made so many graphs all of which are based on qualitative data that I attempt to make quantitative pop into my head that would allow me to try to define a relationship, its strengths, and its weaknesses.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
So I was looking at the equation of love a bit, and I realized something. If you look at it normally, you just see this:
But zoom in a bit...
Spoiler:
But zoom in a bit...
Spoiler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSV_Alvin#Sinking wrote:Researchers found a cheese sandwich which exhibited no visible signs of decomposition, and was in fact eaten.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
I always assumed that, if both partners value the other person's happiness more than their own, then their relationship would become a war where each one attempts to make the other one happier against his or her will.
For example, suppose person A likes film X, and person B likes film Y (they both know what the other partner likes), and they are trying to choose which one too watch.
A will try to convince B that they should watch Y, and B will try to convince A to watch X. This means that in the end the smartest one will be the less happy, and that will make him/her happy.
That is only in cases where both happinesses are mutually incompatible. If both A and B like film Z, then they will cooperate to watch Z.
For example, suppose person A likes film X, and person B likes film Y (they both know what the other partner likes), and they are trying to choose which one too watch.
A will try to convince B that they should watch Y, and B will try to convince A to watch X. This means that in the end the smartest one will be the less happy, and that will make him/her happy.
That is only in cases where both happinesses are mutually incompatible. If both A and B like film Z, then they will cooperate to watch Z.
Re: Mathematical Definition of Love
Kurushimi's argument makes it seem likely that the numerical value of love is negative, which means that the various components of this statement could be true. It's an xkcd 55 wannabe that claims to have used the usual approach. Note that this claimed identity holds even if love=0 and is not negative, the final value is still simple.
Current blog post: Omniscience can actually be pretty beatable sometimes.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests