[ddxbovMQ]

I would think you would learn that in economics, not computer science.

[sPncEjF7]

No. It means returning to the traditional marriage algorithm (guys are suitors to girls, basically).

[sherrferris]

Dude, marriage isn't a variable, and neither is adultery.

[RealCHEAPsoftDOWNLOAD]

[avaiftBoara]

What about gay polygamy?

[diutuartina]

We should restore Droit de seigneur.

[BreeveKambmak]

I'm all for deflowering virgins. In fact, I'd prefer if the soon to be husband would have to watch it. And then, every friday night, the young couple would have to watch the video of that marathon session of deflowering by me.

[Tjfyojlg]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Today in computer science we proved:

If we just returned to traditional marriages we'd eliminate adultery, and

If we legalize gay marriage we have to legalize polygamy too.

Proof One: Because traditional marriages are the only ones which are legal nowadays, adultry can only take place in a traditional marriage. Therefore, it you wish to eliminate adultry, you must get rid of trandtional marriages.

Proof Two: Anyone who believes that "If we legalize gay marriage we have to legalize polygamy too" doesn't understand either polygamy or gay marriage.

[Nglvayhp]

Originally posted by Pekka
Wrongggggg.

If you go back to traditional what ever, there are more girls than boys. So you either have to legalize polygamy right then, or lesbianism. Except there are an equal number of guys and girls. See the definition

If you legalize gay marriage, well, there's no guarantee you'd need to legalize polygamy, because the amount of guys getting it on and girls getting it on is not set or known. So, it might actually end up with perfect number of heteros. No, because you can't guarantee the existance of a stable pairing.

[somozasayre]

"Except there are an equal number of guys and girls. See the definition"

And where is this definition? I missed it?

"No, because you can't guarantee the existance of a stable pairing."

Of course not, but it still is one option that could happen. Also, not everyone couples at all. What about the masturbators? What about the hermafrodites, and how do the ladyboys count?

[23tommy]

oh ****, sorry, I didn't read that long post you made. Sorry.

[cheapphenonline]

Both. (That proof and several others occupied most of lecture.)

[blogwado]

It is apparently (with minor modification) used IRL to match up med students and hospitals for residency.

[b7RKli4l]

It's efficient and provably optimal for either the hospitals or the students (depending on who is the "girl" or "boy" in the algorithm).

[rikdpola]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You don't count, go away.

[iklostardinn]

dysfunctional family values

[irridgita]

He thinks his model accurately depicts real world outcomes despite obviously flawed assumptions. I still say he will make it big as an economist if he so desires.

[DrazAdwamoi]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If we legalize gay marriage we have to legalize polygamy too. Sexist

This doesn't apply if you also legalize lesbian marriage, which I bet you didn't even considered

[Intiltern]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Sexist

This doesn't apply if you also legalize lesbian marriage, which I bet you didn't even considered Actually it assumes all same-sex pairings are permitted.

[CamVideoQl]

Kuci, your license to use the word "proved" has been revoked.

Step away from the car, and lay the word on the ground. Don't ever touch the word again, you cannot be trusted with it.