>>669656Are you implying that you have solved the problem? Because I have read this whole exchange as well as the links and there isn't a solution yet described or linked to in this thread. The generous interpretation is that you either don't understand the problem or the content of the links. But a more realistic one is you understand neither: The problem states that a person might do more than one type of chore, but only two different ones at most, and that a chore can be divided up between several people. (If you didn't register this the first time around, you should have figured it out after
>>658293 at the latest.) As such, it is not a problem about assigning each chore to exactly one person – but let's pretend it were that for a moment: The problem asks for weighting and that means cardinal information. If you only take in rankings, that's only ordinal information. And you can't get cardinal data from ordinal (aside from that a person being assigned to the chore they ranked lightest having a burden of below 1/N in their own estimate and a person being assigned to what they ranked the heaviest having a burden above 1/N in their own estimate). So, even if the problem were about matching one to one, it wouldn't make sense to refer to stable marriage as the reference point (a sensible reference point would be the Hungarian algorithm).
So what we have here is a gross misreading (corrected more than once, but you are stubborn) together with a recommendation that wasn't a very bright move even from the point of view of that misreading. What's your next move? Maybe you want to report this for derailing?
We can't have a discussion about an algorithm allocating resources without money in our communist economic planning thread! Reee! I recommend that you just shouldn't post if you got nothing constructive to say.
And now I will follow my own advice. From the very simple "rod algorithm" in
>>668404 that uses a universal weight standard some interesting variations can be built easily. A subjective version would solve our original problem and I have a hunch that this solution would also give at least some of the subjective versions of these variants as well. For example,
more people than chores: The algorithm would be a very niche thing if it only worked for exactly the same number of chores as people. But you can just use a concept of zero-length rods to make the number of rods equal to the number of people, and then go on as usual. (Maybe the rod metaphor isn't so great in this context. You can just think of zero-length columns, take the average length of all columns, and then go on as usual.)
Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel propose in their vision "Participatory Economics" that individuals get a balanced blend of more and less desirable tasks to do ("balanced job complexes") and they seem to have a general standard scheme in mind rather than individual judgment (a mistake IMHO). Critics like David Schweickart ("Nonsense on Stilts" & "I Still Think It's Nonsense") claim one big reason Parecon is unfeasible is because of the high cost of
each individual having to change between many different tasks supposedly brought about by this balancing requirement (Schweickart: "I don't want to be running all over the place each day or week or month, trying to do a hundred or so different things.") But the rod algorithm shows that with N people and ≤N chores everyone could do nobody has to do more than two different things at most. Suppose we have two general standards to balance (for example an estimate of person-hours each chore takes and an estimate of calories it burns), then the upper bound with N people and ≤N chores everyone could do would be no higher than four different chores per person. Albert has written about Parecon for decades, but I'm sure he doesn't know any of that. People on the pro-socialist side clearly haven't done much thinking yet when it comes to relevant algorithms and I would appreciate if you stopped acting phony by pretending otherwise.