On 8/10/07, James Propp <jpropp@cs.uml.edu> wrote:
Joshua Zucker writes:
I don't see the 15:9 split making any kind of sense, since the people drank the original 8 units of water each too, so they GAVE 7:1 units of water. What is the sense behind it? It seems to me to be the solution you get if you just don't think through the problem completely enough.
Let's change the scenario: I invest $5,000,000 in a three-story office building and you invest $3,000,000. There are three tenants: Propp Enterprises, Zucker Enterprises, and Yoyodyne Incorporated, each of which occupies one floor. If the rent we charge Yoyodyne is $8,000 per month, how should you and I split it? Would you really settle for just $1,000 per month, even though you put up 3/8 of the money for the building?
Suppose the three tenants are A, B, and C. Clearly then I want to get 3/8 of the money from each tenant. But if I'm a tenant too, shouldn't I be paying you 5/8 of the rent on my part of the building, and you be paying me 3/8 of the rent on your part? So Yoyodyne pays $8000 per month, I take $3k and you take $5k. But also I owe you $5k for rent on my part of the building, and you owe me $3k, so net (including the differential ownership of the floors we occupy), it still ends up 1:7, not 3:5. In other words, you'd be awfully generous to let me have a whole floor when you also get only one floor, without some financial compensation! --Joshua