Scribd
Upload
8 views4 pages

Fair Division Methods for Pizza Sharing

The document outlines a class activity focused on fair division using the Divider-Chooser method for sharing a pizza between two and three people. It presents exercises involving different preferences for pizza toppings and explores potential drawbacks of the method, as well as a bonus exercise on a hat guessing game. The activities encourage brainstorming and strategy development to address fairness in division scenarios.

Uploaded by

johnce1981
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
8 views4 pages

Fair Division Methods for Pizza Sharing

The document outlines a class activity focused on fair division using the Divider-Chooser method for sharing a pizza between two and three people. It presents exercises involving different preferences for pizza toppings and explores potential drawbacks of the method, as well as a bonus exercise on a hat guessing game. The activities encourage brainstorming and strategy development to address fairness in division scenarios.

Uploaded by

johnce1981
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Class Activity 4

Continuous Fair Division

Exercise 1: Sharing a Pizza

Karen and Luke are splitting a $12 pizza using the Divider-Chooser method. The pizza is half
pepperoni and half olives (the olive half is shaded). Karen likes pepperoni and olives equally, while
Luke likes olives twice as much as pepperoni, but neither of them knows the other’s preferences.

Karen: The Divider

Suppose Karen was the divider. Since Karen values pepperoni and olives equally, she will cut
the pizza into 2 equal-sized pieces (each valued at $6 in her opinion). The following would all be
legitimate divisions for Karen.

(a) (b) (c)

In each scenario, determine how much (as a dollar amount) Luke values each piece (and thus which
piece he will choose).
Luke: The Divider

Suppose instead that Luke cut the pizza. He will divide the pizza into 2 pieces such that he values
each piece equally (i.e., Luke values each piece at $6). The following would both be legitimate cuts
for Luke.

(a) (b)

In each scenario, determine how much (as a dollar amount) Karen values each piece (and thus
which piece she will choose).

Drawbacks?

As a group, brainstorm possible drawbacks of the divider-chooser method.


Exercise 2: Three’s a Crowd?

The Divider-Chooser method works well for two people, but what if there are three?

(a) Suppose three friends—Alice, Briana, and Charlie—are dividing a pizza among themselves
using the Divider-Chooser method. Alice divides the pizza into three slices that she believes
are equal in value. Then Briana chooses a slice, followed by Charlie, and Alice receives the
remaining piece.
Come up with a kind of pizza (e.g., half pepperoni, half peppers) and assign different value
systems for each friend (e.g., Alice likes pepperoni twice as much as peppers). Use this
example to show how this method could result in an unfair division.

(b) Now suppose Briana and Charlie simultaneously state their favorite slice, and the group
proceeds as follows:

• If Briana and Charlie name different slices, they each receive their favorite, and Alice
gets the remaining one.
• If they both name the same slice, one of the other two slices is arbitrarily given to Alice.
• The two players who both wanted the same slice (Briana and Charlie) then combine
the remaining two slices and use the Divider-Chooser method to divide that combined
portion between them.

Is this method always fair? Why or why not? If not, can you suggest a modification that
might make it fair?
Bonus Exercise: Outsmarting Randomness

Three players-Alex, Blair, and Casey-are each randomly assigned a hat that is either red or blue.
Each player can see the other two players’ hats, but not their own. Once the game begins, no
communication is allowed.
All players must simultaneously decide whether to:

• guess their own hat color (red or blue), or

• pass (choose not to guess).

The group wins if:

• at least one player guesses correctly, and

• no player guesses incorrectly.

Before the game starts, the players may agree on a strategy.


Question: Can the players devise a strategy that gives them a better than 50% chance of winning?

Common questions

Powered by AI

The Divider-Chooser method may lead to dissatisfaction if the divider has unfounded assumptions of fairness that do not align with the chooser's preferences. The main drawback is asymmetric information; each party doesn't know the other’s preferences, which might lead to one party constantly securing more value over another. Moreover, there is potential inefficiency if choices consistently favor one party's interests, possibly leading to future reluctance to engage in similar divisions .

Yes, the players can use a strategy based on parity of the visible hats. For example, if a player sees two hats of the same color, they should pass, while if they see two different colors, they should guess the color opposite to the one they see. This strategy ensures that when the hats are not all the same color, at least one guess is correct, thus increasing the winning probability significantly above 50% .

The simultaneous choice strategy for Briana and Charlie is inherently flawed because when they both choose the same slice, Alice automatically receives one slice without consideration of her preferences, and the two remaining are then combined and divided using their mutual preferences. This does not guarantee fairness as Alice's choice is predetermined without considering the valuation system. Fairness could be improved by ensuring Alice also participates in divvying up combined slices or by adjusting allocations based on a pre-agreed valuation metric, preventing systematic advantage for Briana or Charlie .

When Karen is the divider and she values pepperoni and olives equally, she will cut the pizza into two equal portions, each valued at $6 in her opinion. Since she does not know Luke’s preference, her cut is based on equality in her eyes. Given Luke likes olives twice as much as pepperoni, each piece will be valued differently in his opinion, with the olive-dominant piece being worth more. Therefore, Luke will always choose the slice with more olives to maximize his perceived value, unless the pieces are somehow valued equally by his standards, which is unlikely given his preference skew .

To enhance fairness among three participants, one could use a rotating division approach where each person acts as the divider for different rounds, ensuring that everyone's perspective of fairness becomes a guiding principle at least once. Alternatively, introducing a 'bidding' system where participants express their perceived values of each piece quantifiably might help achieve a more balanced division, reflecting everyone's preferences and ensuring no one consistently receives less-valuable pieces .

Involving a third party complicates the Divider-Chooser method as it assumes equal divisions valued by the divider might not hold true for all choosers. An example is Alice dividing a pizza she sees as equal, Briana selecting based on her highest preference, and Charlie choosing before Alice gets the remainder. If Alice overvalues one portion different from the others, Briana or Charlie may consistently choose unfairly large portions relative to Alice's valuation, leading to inequality. This highlights the method's shortcomings in reflecting diverse preferences with more participants .

You might also like