Applied

The majority that goes in a circle

Every voter hands in a ranking, and a ranking is transitive by construction. Compare the candidates two at a time and let the majority decide each pair, and the verdicts need not fit together into a ranking at all.

Five rules and five winners

Twenty-seven ranked ballots, five entirely reasonable ways of counting them, and five different candidates declared the winner. Every count is correct, every rule is defensible, and the answer turns out to be a property of the rule rather than of the ballots.

Four conditions, and no rule that has all of them

The rung below shows five reasonable rules returning five different winners, which invites the obvious question of which one is right. The answer is that the conditions anybody would write down cannot all hold at once — and here each named rule's own violation is found by search rather than quoted.

A lie that pays

Three rungs of this ladder have read a ballot as a report of a preference. This one reads it as a move, and walks every move one voter has — all six rankings, the winner each produces, and the ones that beat honesty.

The seat that vanishes when the house grows

Twenty-seven whole seats have to be divided between five regions whose exact shares are 15.417, 7.209, 1.755, 1.431 and 1.188. Every rule for rounding those five numbers breaks something, and the instance drawn here breaks all three of the classical ways at once.

One cuts and the other chooses

The oldest rule in fair division promises each of two people at least half the cake by their own measure, and it keeps that promise exactly. It does not promise what the word "fair" is usually asked to carry, and the gap opens the moment the two measures disagree across the cut.

Three people and a trimmed piece

For two people, one cut and one choice deliver a division nobody would swap out of. For three, the same promise costs a trimming, a residue and a choosing order contrived so that an advantage once given cannot be taken back — and the verdict is not three numbers but a whole three-by-three matrix.

Envy-free, up to one item

A cake can be cut anywhere, and every guarantee in this anchor was bought with that freedom. Take the knife away and the exhaustive search over every allocation of three objects returns nothing envy-free at all — so the subject weakened the word until taking turns was enough to reach it.

Nobody has a reason to run away

A matching is stable when no two people on opposite sides would both rather have each other than what they have — a condition that names nothing to build and everything to rule out. The surprise is that something always satisfies it, however perverse the rankings are made.

The side that proposes wins

An instance usually has several stable matchings, and the set of them is not a heap — it is a lattice, closed under taking the better partner and under taking the worse. The two ends of that lattice are exactly what deferred acceptance returns from the two sides, so whoever proposes decides which end the instance lands on.

No stable rule is safe from a lie

A stable matching always exists, and the side that proposes gets the best one it could hope for. This essay closes the ladder with the result that spoils it — one participant's whole strategy space searched, four submissions found that beat the truth, and a theorem saying no rule anywhere escapes.

Two numbers that have to meet

Every linear program has a shadow — a second program built from the same numbers read the other way, whose minimum can never fall below the first's maximum. That much is a one-line calculation; the theorem is that the two numbers are always exactly equal.

What a constraint is worth

The rung below settled that a linear program and its dual reach the same number. This one asks what the dual's variables are, and the answer converts a solution into a rate for every constraint — piecewise constant, zero on the constraints that are not doing any work.

The value from both sides

Two choosers move at the same instant, and each asks the cautious question — how much can be guaranteed, whatever the other does. With pure choices the two answers are usually different numbers; allow a probability and they are forced to be the same one.

The road that makes everyone later

An equilibrium is a state nobody can improve alone, which is a much weaker thing than a state anybody would choose. Adding a link that costs nothing to use makes every traveller in this network strictly slower, and the arithmetic says by exactly how much.