Genady

Yes. Am not sure this is possible. For example, A can be happy with his share but also think that B screwed up and let C have too much.

Yes, there is a definite procedure. But you ask too much from it. They don't need to agree on the value of each item, for example, and they don't need to agree that the shares are equal. All they need to get is that each one is satisfied with his own share.

I think that any order of choosing allows for a possibility that some pirate gets less than what he perceives one fifth of the loot. This is unacceptable. They have to get definitely a satisfactory share each. So, is there a definite procedure?

Yes. Many of those. Yes. No probabilities. No. All is done between the pirates. They follow a definite procedure, and after a finite number of steps each pirate keeps a part of the loot which is at least one fifth of the total according to his own subjective evaluation.

I find many mistakes in the linked article. Take this passage, for example: It is wrong because the numbers don't need to be prime for this result. The author used an example of 12 and 18, which coincide in 36 years. But the numbers 15 and 16, which are not prime, would coincide in 15 x 16 = 240 years, i.e., even rarer than 221.

Aha, got it. Still looking for a counterexample. Let's try this scenario:

Strictly by the pirates. You can consider items to be small enough that they don't need to be cut or broken. The only way to go is by the subjective value judgement of the pirates.

I believe I have such a no-agreed-upon-metric solution. Do you want a little hint?

My former professor asks to forward this announcement to anyone interested. So, here it goes: Subject: SC-012-2023 This is a re-announcement. Primary duties are beaver trapping. Noel E. Myers Noel E. Myers State Director – South Carolina USDA APHIS WS 400 Northeast Drive, Suite L Columbia, SC 29203 (803) 477-3151 (o) (803) 786-9472 (f) SC-012-2023_reannouncement.pdf

IOW, Cantor does not say, ∃ element∈M, ∀ list L, element∉L He says, ∀ list L, ∃ element∈M, element∉L

No, there is no contradiction. As per Cantor, for any list there is an element in M which differs from those in that list.

Won't the spacecraft be spaghettified?

No scales involved. All evaluations are subjective.

What is artificial gravity well?

There are particles called quarks.

This is good. I have a different procedure in mind, but yours works as well. +1

They are not more peaceful, but more mature than children. Specifically, they don't care if another pirate got a larger share than them. Each one cares only that his share is not less than one fifth of the total, in his evaluation.

Then all that's needed is for the requestor to identify what specific information they ask to be deleted in their account profile and/or their posts.

Yes, the assumption 1 is necessary. We assume that the treasure is as close to a continuum as needed. The assumed precision is the precision of their evaluation of the pieces. I'm not sure why the other assumptions are required. For example, why there would be a conflict between who divides and/or who picks in the case of two, given the assumption 1.

Not peaceful enough We don't want to introduce any other incentives, such as a desire not to be killed. The only criterion should be that each one is satisfied with his own portion of the treasure. They should not be forced to accept. They should be individually satisfied. Not by majority either. Literally, each pirate should leave satisfied. A solution should be as good for each one of the five pirates as in the example of two pirates above.