Talk:173: Movie Seating

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

I think that "two friends ... each sitting three seats away" takes "they" a little too literally. Daddy (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Look at it like this. Placing them _friends_ apart guarantees lower background noise so you can actually watch the movie. 108.162.231.227 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Truthfully, I feel one-way crush should be second priority 05:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Lonely...

I know I'm horrifically late on this one, but surely swapping 4 and 7 is the solution which minimizes strangers in "Do not keep 8 away from 6". There is currently no path from 8 to 4. Swapping 4 and 7 downgrades the link to 5 to an Acquaintance from Friendship, but offers a viable path between all members. Unless we're intentionally forcing 8 to talk to 6? 162.158.99.64 08:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The solutions are making assumptions about the weighting of friends, relationships, and acquaintances. For example, maybe someone in a relationship would achieve maximum enjoyment if the SO is seated next to a stranger so all focus is on them. -- Flewk (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

If we take the "keep 8 away" solution and put 8 in middle of 6 and 3, wouldn't the result be strictly superior to the "do not keep 8 away" one? It'd have the same number of adjacent relationships, but 6 would be seated next to a friend instead of an aquaintance, which is better. 141.101.104.82 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

8 doesn't know 1 or 5, so "keep 8 away" solution is bad. He would be alone then. 162.158.238.58 15:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it's best to separate the couples so that no one has to be the third wheel. I propose [1,3,4,5,7,8,6,2]. Now, it might be unfair to #1, since his only connection is his girlfriend, so [3,4,5,7,8,6,2,1] works as well. 198.41.226.124 19:52, 15 August 2017 (UTC)