> It's not even designed to deal with repeat situation, incentives and strategizing. It just looks at the outcome and says: is this optimal?
That's exactly what I'm saying:
> And pareto-optimal makes no sense when you're looking at future rounds with different students.
And that's why I talked about a time-series analogy of pareto-optimality:
> But you could create a pareto-optimal analogy: allowing two students now to trade place in a seemingly pareto-optimal way would actually harm other students when you look at the future rounds, so the trade actually isn't pareto-optimal.
In that sense, you don't just look at the students selecting now, but at the future students as well. In that case, allowing trades now leads to dissatisfaction in the future, so while allowing trades now might seem to lead to a pareto-optimal scenario, it doesn't lead to a time-series-pareto-optimal scenario.
That's exactly what I'm saying:
> And pareto-optimal makes no sense when you're looking at future rounds with different students.
And that's why I talked about a time-series analogy of pareto-optimality:
> But you could create a pareto-optimal analogy: allowing two students now to trade place in a seemingly pareto-optimal way would actually harm other students when you look at the future rounds, so the trade actually isn't pareto-optimal.
In that sense, you don't just look at the students selecting now, but at the future students as well. In that case, allowing trades now leads to dissatisfaction in the future, so while allowing trades now might seem to lead to a pareto-optimal scenario, it doesn't lead to a time-series-pareto-optimal scenario.