News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by Houshalter on Sunday July 09, 2017 @04:40PM (#14731562)
What does the distribution look like if you remove the boundary? I think it should be roughly the same.
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by svantana on Sunday July 09, 2017 @04:51PM (#14731597)
It should be fairly anti-symmetric, since the dynamics of losing are similar to those of winning. So instead of exponential looking, it's shaped like exp(rank) - exp(-rank). (just confirmed this with a quick simulation)
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by joe_the_user on Sunday July 09, 2017 @11:30PM (#14733201)
With participants able to go into debt indefinitely, the process becomes a random walk.

The result should be each participant being up or down from 0 at a rate of proportionated sqrt of t, the number of iterations of the system. Implying a wealth distribution which would become ever-more skewed over time.

Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by lmm on Monday July 10, 2017 @05:41AM (#14734535)
Is that what "skewed" means? To my mind a widening bell curve which remained symmetric (which is what we're talking about, right?) would not be "skewed".
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by joe_the_user on Monday July 10, 2017 @03:15PM (#14738792)
Over time, the average participant would have either far more coins in credit than they began with or be in debt for far more coins than they started with.

Whether you have what statistician call "skewed" or not, you have what most people would call skewed, unequal, extreme.

Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by Bartweiss on Monday July 10, 2017 @11:04AM (#14736532)
"Varied" or "widely distributed" seem like better terms. To my mind, "skew" is what we have in the original problem (with a zero-bound) - it only describes asymmetric distributions.
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by Rotten194 on Sunday July 09, 2017 @04:45PM (#14731577)
Removing the boundary doesn't really make sense -- if you allow people to go into negative dollars but still be able to give a dollar each tick, then there's no longer a finite amount of money in the system.
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by AaronFriel on Sunday July 09, 2017 @04:54PM (#14731611)
Sure there is, it's just effectively a zero interest debt instrument. Imagine that everyone is exchanging IOUs, instead of physical dollars.
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by nazgul17 on Sunday July 09, 2017 @05:58PM (#14731938)
You misunderstand. The parent meant that the amount is infinite, so the property that eventually every state will happen is no longer there.
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by meric on Sunday July 09, 2017 @07:49PM (#14732396)
Wow, a mathematical explanation of how uncapped debt reduces wealth mobility.
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by nandemo on Sunday July 09, 2017 @09:47PM (#14732834)
You're kidding, right? No way a generic observation about a markov chain (which doesn't even model interest) implies that "uncapped debt reduces wealth mobility".
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by e12e on Monday July 10, 2017 @09:59AM (#14735945)
So, with typical debt, interest rates are higher for debt than for savings. Does seem that a) removing the cap, and b) introducing interest on savings < debt would trap some people in poverty?
Re:Counterintuitive problem: People in a room keep giving do... by barrkel on Sunday July 09, 2017 @09:25PM (#14732755)
IOUs are money, in a model this simple.