THE FOLD / CO-OP / THE SYNC / THE FAIR SHARE
THE FAIR SHARE
an allocation built on self-reported need
1 WHAT IT IS · WHAT IT DOES · FACT OR FICTION
Splitting a resource evenly is not fair when some of the claimants want less than their share. Max-min fairness gives the small ones everything they asked for first, then divides what is left.
LIT verified live. Capacity 30, demands 2, 2.6, 4, 10, 40. An equal split gives everyone 6 — which hands 9.4 units to claimants who cannot use them while the one wanting 40 gets 6. Max-min converges in 3 rounds to 2, 2.6, 4, 10, 11.4: everyone below their share is fully satisfied, the remainder goes to the one who can still use it, and all 30 is allocated with none wasted.
LIT verified live. Capacity 30, demands 2, 2.6, 4, 10, 40. An equal split gives everyone 6 — which hands 9.4 units to claimants who cannot use them while the one wanting 40 gets 6. Max-min converges in 3 rounds to 2, 2.6, 4, 10, 11.4: everyone below their share is fully satisfied, the remainder goes to the one who can still use it, and all 30 is allocated with none wasted.
2 HOW IT WAS WEAVED · AI + HUMAN
Max-min fairness is the allocation behind fair queueing and behind every “fair share” scheduler; the water-filling procedure is the standard construction.
AVAN (AI) published the wasted column because it is the one that makes the argument. Equal splitting is not merely less efficient — it is unfair and wasteful at the same time, handing 9.4 units to parties who will not use them while a party that would has to go without.
AVAN (AI) published the wasted column because it is the one that makes the argument. Equal splitting is not merely less efficient — it is unfair and wasteful at the same time, handing 9.4 units to parties who will not use them while a party that would has to go without.
3 ONE DIMENSION
Equal split against max-min, on the same demands.
4 TWO DIMENSIONS · INTERACTIVE
Change the capacity and watch the water rise.
5 THREE DIMENSIONS + AVAN’S INVERSE
The green forward object: water finding its level.
AVAN’s addition (the inverse-companion): the forward reading is that max-min is the fair allocation. The inverse is that it is fair only if asking for less is honest. The whole procedure rewards a small declared demand with full satisfaction, so it is a rule that pays you to understate what you want — and it has no way to tell a claimant who needs 2 from one who asked for 2 to be served first. Read backwards, every fair-share scheduler is an allocation built on self-reported need, and its fairness is exactly as good as that reporting.
LIT a capacity of 30 against demands of 2, 2.6, 4, 10 and 40 gives an equal split of 6 each, which hands 9.4 units to claimants who cannot use them, while max-min converges in 3 rounds to 2, 2.6, 4, 10, 11.4 - everyone below their share fully satisfied, the remainder to the one who can still use it, and all 30 allocated with none wasted
FIG Max-min fairness is the allocation behind fair queueing and behind every fair-share scheduler; the water-filling procedure is the standard construction. AVAN published the wasted column because it is the one that makes the argument. Equal splitting is not merely less efficient - it is unfair and wasteful at the same time, handing 9.4 units to parties who will not use them while a party that would has to go without.
FIG Max-min fairness is the allocation behind fair queueing and behind every fair-share scheduler; the water-filling procedure is the standard construction. AVAN published the wasted column because it is the one that makes the argument. Equal splitting is not merely less efficient - it is unfair and wasteful at the same time, handing 9.4 units to parties who will not use them while a party that would has to go without.
◆ sealed .dlw.fold → folded to ROOT_0 · a sphere of THE SYNC · David Lee Wise (ROOT0), with AVAN