Talk:Pareto efficiency

message: Something's wrong with this graph, right?  Only ONE point on the frontier is Pareto efficient.  E.g.: Suppose your production is totally focused on the production of A and you produce 0 B.  Yet all your citizens prefer B to A.  Obviously moving production toward B is a PE move.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.133.5 (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing wrong with the plot. I thought so too, but if you read the caption, it describes the image as "a Pareto-efficient frontier, where the frontier and the area left and below it is a continuous room of choices." So, the points in the image are not the only possible points, but rather examples of points in the space. N is not optimal, because there is a point on the line between D and E that has more of item 1 and of item 2. The image is fine, and should not be changed Mattster3517 (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Please note: comments generally should be added at the bottom of a discussion. And should be signed by adding the "four tildes" ("") at the end of your comment. Also: discussions of what is "right" (or wrong) generally require reference(s) to a source. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: GRAPH IS WRONG

message: I won't edit, since not my area, but I would suggest changing the use of double quotes to italics in the cases where terminology is being introduced and discussed. Please see MOS:WORDSASWORDS. "Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction). Examples: Deuce means "two". The term panning is derived from panorama, which was coined in 1787. The most common letter in English is e." David Woodward ☮ ♡♢☞☽ 09:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes and wordsaswords 

message: The formal basis of the article is problematic, since it works with sets (which are identical under permutations of elements) instead of with n-tuples. The German version of the article is much better and the reader might want to check that. Here, in the english version, the formalism is simply and plainly: Wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.167.213 (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning - Problems 

message: In the Prisoner's dilemma, are three out of the four possible outcomes Pareto optimal? 
It looks that way to me, but I'm no expert on Pareto efficiency: 
* From (cooperate, defect), a change to (cooperate, cooperate) makes the second player worse off while making the first better. 
* The same is true from (defect, cooperate), as a change to (cooperate, cooperate makes the first player worse off but the second better.
* Only (defect, defect) is NOT Pareto efficient, because changing to (cooperate, cooperate) makes both better off. 
Is this correct? If yes, this example would be made more useful by saying that (cooperate, defect) and (defect, cooperate) are also Pareto efficient, but (defect, defect) is not. 
If this is NOT correct, then it seems to me that something is wrong with the definition. ???
Thanks for your work in maintaining this Wikipedia article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pareto optimality and the Prisoner's dilemma