THE FAIR CAKE CUTTING PROBLEM:

HOW CAN FAIRNESS BE GUARNTEED AS A MECHANISTIC RESULT?

HAFSA JAHAN
THE FAIR CAKE CUTTING PROBLEM:
HOW CAN FAIRNESS BE GUARNTEED AS A MECHANISTIC RESULT?
 AFTER CUTTING THE CAKE AND SERVING
THEIR LOVED ONES, THE BIRTHDAY PERSON
CONTINUED THE CELEBRATION. EVERYONE AT
THE CELEBRATION WOULD ENJOY HAVING A
PIECE OF CAKE TO CELEBRATE. SHARING IS
THE PURPOSE OF CAKE CUTTING IN THE
MODERN ERA. SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT
CUTTING A CAKE MARKS THE END OF A YEAR
IN A PERSON'S LIFE, WHICH IS A SIGNIFICANT
ACCOMPLISHMENT IN AND OF ITSELF.

 THE TERM "CAKE-CUTTING" REFERS TO THE

CHALLENGE OF EQUALLY DISTRIBUTING A
RESOURCE—THE CAKE—AMONG THE
PARTICIPANTS. DIFFERENT PLAYERS COULD
PLACE A DIFFERENT VALUE ON THE SAME SLICE
OF CAKE, WHICH MEANS THAT THEIR UNIQUE
VALUATION FUNCTIONS WILL TYPICALLY BE
DISSIMILAR. EVERYONE SHOULD BE TREATED
FAIRLY SO THAT NO ONE IS EXCLUDED.

 BEING JUST FOSTERS RESPECT,

ACCOUNTABILITY, LEADERSHIP, TRUST, AND A
MEANINGFUL EXISTENCE. FAIRNESS SHOULD
BE SOMETHING THAT MATTERS TO A PERSON.
WHEN SOMEONE FEELS THAT SOMETHING IS
UNFAIR, THEY ADVOCATE FOR CHANGE IN
THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. PEOPLE WILL
APPRECIATE AND TRUST SOMEONE WHO IS
FAIR.

 PEOPLE WILL WANT TO BE THEIR FRIENDS BECAUSE

THEY WILL BE AWARE OF HOW NICE THEY ARE. BEING
IMPARTIAL AND MAKING DECISIONS DEVOID OF
INJUSTICE AND DISCRIMINATION ARE QUALITIES
ASSOCIATED WITH FAIRNESS. WHEN CONSIDERING
THE IDEA OF FAIRNESS, EQUALITY AND EQUITY ARE
THE TWO TACTICS WE MIGHT EMPLOY TO ACHIEVE
FAIRNESS. MANKIND WILL ALREADY HAVE WON THE
BATTLE FOR EQUALITY IF IT TREATS EVERYONE
EQUALLY.

IT IMPLIES THAT ALL MEMBERS OF SOCIETY OUGHT

TO ENJOY THE SAME LEVELS OF DECENCY,
GENEROSITY, AND RIGHTS THAT OTHER PEOPLE DO.
NO OF ONE'S GENDER OR ANY DISPARITIES IN THEIR
MENTAL, PHYSICAL, OR DEVELOPMENTAL STATE,
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO EQUALITY
ON ALL FRONTS. EACH PARTICIPANT NEEDS TO
RECEIVE AN EQUAL SHARE OF THE CAKE IN ORDER
FOR THINGS TO BE FAIR, BUT THIS RARELY GOES AS
PLANNED.

IT IS POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO CLAIM THAT THEIR

PIECE IS TOO SMALL TO SATISFY THEM, WHILE
ANOTHER PERSON MAY CLAIM THAT THEIR PIECE IS
TOO LARGE, DISTORTING THE IDEA OF
PROPORTIONALITY. ALTHOUGH THE VALUE OF
FAIRNESS EXTENDS BEYOND THIS, FOSTERING IT
INEVITABLY FOSTERS THE DESIRE TO ACT IN WAYS
THAT WILL BENEFIT PEOPLE AROUND US AND MAKE
SOCIETY A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE.

 WE MAKE AN EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT

EVERYONE RECEIVES A PIECE OF CAKE WHEN IT
IS CUT. HOWEVER, HAVE WE GIVEN ENOUGH
THOUGHT TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WE
ARE SERVING AN EQUAL AMOUNT OF CAKE TO
EACH GUEST AT THE PARTY? EVERYONE
DESERVES TO HAVE AN EQUAL SHARE, SO IT IS
CRUCIAL THAT EVERYONE RECEIVES ONE.

OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE UNJUST TO THE OTHER

PEOPLE. CAKE CUTTING IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD GAME
IN GAME THEORY WHERE THE FIRST PLAYER MUST CUT
THE CAKE AND THE SECOND PLAYER THEN SELECTS
ANY SLICE. THIS IS A FAIR GAME SINCE IF ONE PERSON
CUTS PIECES THAT AREN'T EQUAL, THE OTHER PLAYER
CAN PICK THE LARGER OR SMALLER PIECE. THERE ARE
MATHEMATICAL METHODS KNOWN AS CAKE-CUTTING
ALGORITHMS THAT WILL PRODUCE A FAIR SOLUTION.

HOW DO TWO INDIVIDUALS FAIRLY DIVIDE A CAKE? WE

SHOULD GIVE THAT QUESTION SOME THOUGHT AS IT
RELATES TO THE CAKE-CUTTING ISSUE. CONSIDER
SPLITTING A CAKE BETWEEN TWO INDIVIDUALS. RON
AND ADILAH ARE THE TWO INDIVIDUALS DIVIDING THE
CAKE. CONSIDER THAT ONCE RON OFFERS TO DIVIDE
THE CAKE INTO TWO PIECES, HE DECIDES TO START
WITH ONE OF THEM. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A FAIR
OFFER.

RON IS EASILY PERSUADED TO DIVIDE THE CAKE INTO

TWO PIECES THAT AREN'T THE SAME SIZE AND THEN
TAKE THE BIGGER PORTION FOR HIMSELF.
THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT NEITHER THE METHOD
NOR THE RESULTS WOULD BE FAIR. THIS INDICATES
THAT ADILAH WON'T BE ABLE TO RECEIVE AN EQUAL
SHARE, ON THE OTHER HAND. WHEN A CAKE IS
DIVIDED AMONG N AGENTS, THE DIVISION IS
PROPORTIONATE IF EACH AGENT RECEIVES AT LEAST
1/N OF THE CAKE.

THE "I CUT, YOU CHOOSE" APPROACH CAN BE USED TO

FAIRLY DIVIDE THE CAKE BETWEEN ADILAH AND RON.
ACCORDING TO THE "I CUT, YOU CHOOSE" METHOD,
ONE PERSON SHOULD DIVIDE THE CAKE INTO TWO
PIECES BEFORE LETTING THE OTHER PERSON SELECT
THE FIRST SLICE.

TO PREVENT HAVING A SLICE THAT IS LESS THAN HALF

OF THE CAKE, IT MAKES SENSE THAT THE FIRST
PERSON WOULD WISH TO CUT THE CAKE INTO TWO
EQUAL PIECES. THE LARGER PIECE OF THE CAKE, IF
RON DIVIDES IT INTO TWO UNEVEN SLICES, WILL GO
TO ADILAH, AND RON WILL GET THE SMALLER PIECE.
THIS PSYCHOLOGY WILL CAUSE RON TO SLICE THE
CAKES CONSIDERABLY DIFFERENTLY THAN BEFORE.

CURRENTLY, HE WOULD PREFER TO DIVIDE THE CAKE

EQUALLY, OR 50/50. CONSIDER RON SLICING THE CAKE
INTO PIECES X AND 1 - X, WHERE X REPRESENTS A
PROPORTION OF THE ENTIRE CAKE OR A PORTION OF
THE TOTAL. THIS WILL SERVE AS A SIMPLE PROOF.
ADILAH CHOOSES FIRST AND SELECTS THE LARGEST
PIECE: MAXIMUM (X, 1 – X). THIS LEAVES THE FIRST
INDIVIDUAL WITH THE BARE MINIMUM, WHICH IS MIN
(X, 1 – X).

IN ORDER TO GET THE BIGGEST SLICE OF THE CAKE,

THE FIRST PERSON WANTS TO CUT IT (X, 1 – X). WHEN
X = 0.5, 1 - X ALSO EQUALS 0.5 SINCE THE HIGHEST
VALUE OF MIN(X, 1 - X) FOR X BETWEEN 0 AND 1
OCCURS AT THIS POINT. SO, RON WILL CUT THE CAKE
INTO 2 EQUAL SLICES AND THE “I CUT, YOU CHOOSE”
METHOD PRODUCES A FAIR DIVISION OF THE CAKE.

 IN THE TRADITIONAL CAKE-CUTTING PROBLEM,

FAIRNESS-WISE, STRATEGY-PROOFNESS IS A HIGHLY
EXPENSIVE CRITERION. IN ORDER TO IDENTIFY
PROCEDURES THAT ACHIEVE FAIR ALLOCATIONS
WITHOUT PROVIDING AGENTS WITH INCENTIVES TO
FALSIFY THEIR PREFERENCES FOR THE CAKE, A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY
HAS BEEN MOTIVATED BY THIS RESEARCH SUBJECT.

IN SEVERAL SCIENTIFIC FIELDS DURING THE PAST 70

YEARS, THE ISSUE OF HOW TO EQUITABLY
DISTRIBUTE A DIVISIBLE GOOD AMONG ACTORS WHO
VALUE ITS MANY COMPONENTS DIFFERENTLY HAS
BEEN WIDELY INVESTIGATED. ONLY IF THE AGENTS
DISCLOSE THEIR CHOICES HONESTLY CAN THE
ENVY-FREENESS OF THESE DIVISION PROCEDURES BE
ENSURED.

 REFERENCE:

CAKE-CUTTING ALGORITHMS, FOLIEN ZUR

VORLESUNG, SOMMERSEMESTER 2016, DOZENT:
PROF. DR. J. ROTHE