A FAIR-DIVISION CONUNDRUM

Author(s): Timothy Chambers

Source: The Mathematics Teacher, Vol. 103, No. 3 (OCTOBER 2009), p. 172
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20876567
Accessed: 26-06-2016 16:37 UTC

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

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.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Mathematics Teacher

This content downloaded from 137.49.120.96 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:37:06 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

We appreciate the interest and value the
views of those who write. Readers comment
ing on articles are encouraged to send cop
ies of their correspondence to the authors.
For publication: All letters for publication
are acknowledged, but because of the large
number submitted, we do not send letters of
acceptance or rejection. Letters to be con
familiar expected value equation for
sidered for publication should be in MS Word
mutually exclusive (and jointly exhaus
document format and sent to mt@nctm.orq.
TYPE AND DOUBLE-SPACE letters that are tive) outcomes ensuing by chance,
sent by mail. Letters should not exceed 250
words and are subject to abridgment. At the
end of the letter include your name and affil
iation, if any, including zip or postal code and
e-mail address, per the style of the section.
172 MATHEMATICS TEACHER | Vol. 103, No. 3 October 2009
This content downloaded from 137.49.120.96 on Sun, 26 Jun 2016 16:37:06 UTC
A FAIR-DIVISION CONUNDRUM which in this case yields p/2 + (1 - p)/2
Recently, I asked my philosophy stu = 1/2. This result engenders the ques
dents to compare and contrast their atti tion: Since the expected value of the
tudes toward a pair of hypothetical situ second resolution is both fair and inde
ations. I found these examples thought pendent of p, why do we feel that this
provoking, since they probed students' solution is "less fair" than the first?
views of fairness. But because the exam I then asked my students how they
ples also have mathematical aspects, I would have cut the snack if they found
thought that mathematics teachers and themselves in the second situation. They
their students as well might find these overwhelmingly opted for an even divi
thought experiments of interest. sion, p = 1/2, again citing "fairness" as the
The first example was inspired by a reason. This meant that they were implic
television commercial for peanut butter. A itly rejecting an alternative view of fair
mother spreads peanut butter on a slice of ness, to wit: It is fair for a person to have
bread and sets the snack before two broth an even chance at a larger piece, p, where
ers, Cody and Jake. Mom then asks the p > 1/2, if he or she is willing to risk an
older brother, Jake, to cut the snack. Cody even chance at a smaller piece. Hence, my
protests, worried that Jake will cut the second question: Why do students deem
snack unevenly and then claim the lion's the foregoing proposition false?
share for himself. So Mom intervenes with Timothy Chambers
the wisdom of Solomon: Jake gets to divide chambers @ hartford. edu
the snack, but then Cody gets his choice of University of Hartford
the two cut pieces. Jake knows that Cody West Hartford, CT 06117
will take the larger piece if the division is
unequal, so he will strive to cut the pieces ONE-TO-ONE FUNCTIONS
as evenly as possible. Problem solved. On the chalk board in a classroom I saw
I then asked my students about a these three lines:
second way Mom might have resolved
the dispute. Suppose, instead, that Mom x2 = 100
had framed this rule: Jake gets to cut the Vj? = il00
snack, but then the cut pieces will be dis x = ?10
tributed on the basis of a coin flip (e.g.,
if heads, Jake gets to choose first; if tails, This conclusion is misleading and
Cody gets to choose first). confusing on at least two counts. It
My students overwhelmingly pre suggests that the square root of x2 is x,
ferred the first solution as "more fair." which is false if x is negative, and it sug
Yet an interesting mathematical fact is gests that the square root of 100 is ?10,
worth noting. Suppose that, after Jake which is false (+10 is the only solution).
cuts the snack, the cut pieces are the The process of solving the equation x2
fractions p and 1 - p. Then the expected = 100 has to do with square roots but not
outcome of the coin flip is given by the by the simple application of the square
root function to both sides, because x2 is
not a one-to-one function. The second
line on the board should be omitted or
rewritten as Vx2 = |x| = 10. The relevant
theorem should be stated as follows:
^ ^(probability of outcome j)?
(payoff of outcome j) J, x2 = c if and only if x = ?Vc.
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms