Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC830713); site klipper.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
From: biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Pareto Efficiency
Message-ID: <361@klipper.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Nov-84 05:09:57 EST
Article-I.D.: klipper.361
Posted: Tue Nov 13 05:09:57 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Nov-84 01:50:46 EST
References: <1080@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Reply-To: biep@klipper.UUCP
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 20
Summary: 

[]
	The important thing with Pareto-optimality is this:

	A Pareto-optimal solution may or may not be the best one, but

	A NON-PARETO-OPTIMAL SOLUTION IS NEVER THE BEST ONE.

	Additionally, a Pareto-superior solution is always better than
	the other one, so Pareto-optimalisation is *always* a good thing,
	even if it doesn't garantee (?sp) the best solution to be found.

	If a "best" solution does exist, it is a Pareto-optimal one.
-- 

							  Biep.
	{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep

I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am
prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it.
							--Voltaire