Talk:Hotelling's law

message: "It would be more socially beneficial if the shops separated themselves and moved to one third of the way along the street at different ends".  Why a third? Would a quarter be even better? --Henrygb 18:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: because that is overall closest to as many places as possible, well that is the reasoning, you would have to ask a mathematician for the exact optimal distance. Bluemoose 19:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am a mathematician and I think a quarter would be better. Anyone give me a good reason why not?--Henrygb 23:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that 1/4 would be better as well.  That should minimize the distance any person would need to walk to reach a store.  Assuming someone is coming from either end, they only need to walk 1/4 of the length of the street to reach a shop, and so would someone in the middle of the street.  If they were located 1/3 apart, people on the ends would have to walk farther, even though people in the middle would have a shorter distance.  This case could possibly be a better solution if the density of people is significantly greater in the center of the street, but assuming uniform probabilities of starting location, 1/4 would be better. KristinLee 01:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why a third?

message: There is an economic theory abut where two ice cream vendors who sell an identical product end up on a beach (right in the middle). There's a Wikipedia article about it and I wanted to link to it as it is the same idea just in economics - but I can't find it. But it exists because i know I read it. If you can think of it, please add it, thanks a lot.--Soylentyellow 22:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "perfect location for two ice cream vendors on the beach" theory

message: There is a note in Econometrica: 
Econometrica, Vol. 47, No. 5 (September, 1979)
ON HOTELLING'S "STABILITY IN COMPETITION"
BY C. D'ASPREMONT, J. JASKOLD GABSZEWICZ, AND J.-F. THISSE
They state that "The purpose of this note is to show that the so-called Principle of Minimum Differentiation, as based on Hotelling's 1929 paper "Stability in Competition," is invalid. Firstly, we assert that, contrary to the statement formulated by Hotelling in his model, nothing can be said about the tendency of both sellers to agglomerate at the center of the market. The reason is that no equilibrium price solution will exist when both sellers are not far enough from each other. Secondly, we consider a slightly modified version of Hotelling's example, for which there exists a price equilibrium solution everywhere. We show however that, for this version, there is a tendency for both sellers to maximize their differentiation. This example thus constitutes a counterexample to Hotelling's conclusions."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mogens1 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Hotelling's "Stability in Competition" 

message: I changed the importance of this article  from Low to High. For a discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics/Assessment. --PaperTyler (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've switched it to Mid, possibly will want to switch to Low later--trying to get better proportions in the importance categories. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: high importance

message: Dr. Platen has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Platen has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Eckhard Platen & Hardy Hulley, 2008. "Hedging for the Long Run," Research Paper Series 214, Quantitative Finance Research Centre, University of Technology, Sydney.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Platen's comment on this article