Math Experts Split the Check

Author(s): Ben Orlin

Source: Math Horizons, Vol. 21, No. 3 (February 2014), pp. 18-19
Published by: Mathematical Association of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.4169/mathhorizons.21.3.18 .
Accessed: 31/05/2014 22:36

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Mathematical Association of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Math Horizons.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 47.55.192.73 on Sat, 31 May 2014 22:36:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Math Experts
Split the Check
Ben Orlin CS: Do you even

E
know how to
ngineer: Remember to tip 18 percent, everybody.
code?
Mathematician: Is that 18 percent of the pretax
Math: Why
total, or of the total with tax?
bother? Learning
Physicist: You know, it’s simpler if we assume the system
to code is also a
doesn’t have tax.
trivial problem.
Computer Scientist: But it does have tax.
Eng: Uh . . . your
Phys: Sure, but the numbers work out more cleanly if we
program says we
don’t pay tax and tip. It’s a pretty small error term.
each owe $8,400.
Eng: What you call a “small error,” I call a “collapsed
CS: Well, I
bridge.”
haven’t debugged it yet, if that’s what you’re getting at.
Economist: Don’t get me started on taxes! If there
Phys: This is a waste of time. Let’s just split it evenly.
were no taxes, I would have ordered a second soda. But
Econ: No! That’s so ineffcient. Let’s each write down
instead, the government intervened, and by increasing
the amount we’re willing to put in, then auction off the
transaction costs, prevented an exchange that would
remainder at some point on the contract curve.
have benefited both the restaurant and me.
Phys: Huh?
Eng: You did order a second soda.
Math: Like most economics, that’s just gibberish with
Econ: In practice, yes. But my argument still holds in the word “auction” in it.
theory. Eng: Look, it’s simple. Total your items, add 8 percent
The computer scientist lays a smart phone on the tax, and 18 percent tip.
table. Math: Sure. Does anybody know 12 plus 7?
CS: OK, I’ve coded a program to help us compute the CS: You don’t?
check. Math: What do I look like, a human calculator?
Math: Hmmph. Any idiot could do that. It’s a trivial Numbers are for children, half-wits, and bored cats.
problem. The engineer looks at the cash they’ve gathered.
Eng: Is everyone’s money in? It seems we’re a little
short . . .
Phys: How short?
Eng: Well, the total was $104, not including tip . . . and
so far we’ve got $31.07 and an old lottery ticket.
Phys: Close enough, right? It’s a small error term.
Math: Which of you idiots wasted your money on a lot-
tery ticket?
Econ: I should mention that I’m not planning to eat here
again. Are any of you?
CS: What does that matter?
Econ: Well, in a noniterated prisoner’s dilemma, the
dominant strategy is to defect.
Eng: Meaning?
Econ: We should be tipping 0 percent, since we’ll never
see that waiter again.
Math: That’s awful.

18 February 2014 : : Math Horizons : : www.maa.org/mathhorizons

This content downloaded from 47.55.192.73 on Sat, 31 May 2014 22:36:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Phys: Will the waiter really care—0 percent, 20 percent?
Let’s not split hairs. It’s a small error term.
The engineer looks up from a graphing calculator.
Eng: All right. I’ve computed the precise amount each of us
should pay, using double integrals and partial derivatives. I
triple-checked my work.
Math: Didn’t we all order the same thing? You could have
just divided the total by five.
Eng: I could? I mean . . . of course I could! Shut up! You
think you’re so clever!
Econ: So, we’re all agreed on a 0 percent tip?
CS: Well . . . the waiter did bring only two orders of fries
for the table.
Phys: We only ordered two.
CS: Exactly. We got the 1st order, and the 2nd, but never
the 0th.
Econ: I’ll be frank. At this point, my self-interest lies in not
paying at all. And the economy prospers when we each pur-
sue our individual self-interest. See you later!
The economist dashes off. The engineer and computer
scientist glance at one another, then follow.
Math: Looks like it’s just you and me now. Zach Weinersmith, smbc-comics.com

Phys: Good. The two-body problem will be easier to solve.

Math: How?
Phys: By reducing it to a one-body problem. Uncountable sets
The physicist scampers away.
Math: Wait! Come back here!
Waiter: I notice your friends have gone. Are you done with
paying the check?
Math: Well, I’ve got a proof that we can pay. But I warn
you: It’s not constructive. ■

Since completing his BA in math in 2009, Ben Orlin

has taught high school courses including calculus, sta-
tistics, psychology, biology, and (somewhat dubiously)
earth science. He has written for Slate and The
Atlantic, and he blogs at Math with Bad Drawings
(http://mathwithbaddrawings.com/).
“ . . . Infinity-one! Infinity-two! Infinity . . . “
Email: ben.orlin@gmail.com
Ty Devries, somethingofthatilk.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.4169/mathhorizons.21.3.18

Grant Snider, incidentalcomics.com

www.maa.org/mathhorizons : : Math Horizons : : February 2014 19

This content downloaded from 47.55.192.73 on Sat, 31 May 2014 22:36:08 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions