User talk:Markdumasjr83
To diminish problems and properly allocate value when solutions are created.
The real value of a solution for more than one person i.e. a solution that is not a top value solution is equal to the value of the (total value of solving problems unique to one person/number of unique problems)times the (people with unique problems/total people) which is defined as (cost of a single problem)which equals (the cost of a single problem) times (the the total number of people for which the problem exists/the maximum number of people whose problem is solved at the cost of a single problem) times (the total number of people who experience the problem / total number of people)
A solution is only something that benefits all at the expense of nobody. This fundamental principal is solution number 1 understanding a solution. Removing a problem specific to some while leaving it for others and accrediting it with value is a mistake because this results in giving of value greater than the value of the problem reduction. Value is only created where the net ratio of total ability to pay for problem avoidance to total cost of problem avoidance drops for all. Thus partial solutions should not be building blocks for other solutions and must be categorized rather as potential. Allowing only true solutions into the solution chain will lead to proper hierarchical valuation to each problem in the solution puzzle thereby making the solution puzzle solvable by mathematics and structural theory. I.E a problem with a known solution that can be solved for 90% for a cost of 1. but with the known solution for the final 10% at a cost of 9 it is clear that that an unknown solution for the last 10% exists for the cost of equal it is clear that the total solution lies substantially higher on the chain than the cost of avoidance for the 90% because the total solution cost for the total problem is currently 1.37 while its relative cost to 90% is 1 thus its a higher order function then the value of 1.37 suggests because it is value must be reduced to less then 1 to make it work because a solution with the cost of avoidance of 1 for 90% will ultimately have the same cost extended to all because the cost of solving a problem specific to all is the same across the board when all problems are solved rather than rising thus a lower order solution is in order to allow the 10% to enjoy the cost of avoidance accorded to the 90%. The functions value and position on the hierarchy will ultimately be less then the cost at which it the cost of avoidance rises faster than t
The purpose of Wiki should be defined as a Combnitaory Solution Idea Chain. Where it is presumed that no solution exists now and can only exist if a problem is eliminated. The importance of properly valuing a solution will add order to true solution generation. The total number of solutions will be the answer of every problem thus solution value is limited to a finite number which today we call 1 the current ratio of the things.. we exist in a problem/solution balance because the potential of solutions reducing problems is 1 today because all problems can be eliminated. But prior to today it was impossible to eliminate a problem because assigning the wrong value to a solution does not solve anything. The interesting thing about limiting the value of the solutions to 1 and assigning each new solution a position in a hierarchical solution is that even while each solution has value and greater rights and privileges are assigned the solution giver eventually the value of each additional solution reduces the total value he has relative to his peers because when all solutions exist there is infinite value in each pro rata share of solution to avoid problems which is all value is in the first place the avoidance of problems.
The top down rather than bottom up solution to problem solving is the goal. By solving the problems specific to minorities we extract disproportionate total value from our minimal efforts. One we generate concrete solutions. Two the ratio of net Solutions to Problems rises for all by a percentage greater than the cost of the reduction because the total cost to reduction decreased by the same amount of increase thus a problem that comprised 1% of the cost of avoidance in a 50/50 cost system when taken off the balance sheet reduces the ratio of total cost to ability to avoid by greater than. Moreover regardless of whether the profit gained from reducing the problem is equitably distributed. The problem still benefits all massively with little cost. Cost is equal to value of problem and value of problem whether a small problem is reduce everywhere or a big problem is reduced in one place the ration of total cost of avoidance to total ability to pay is the same. But what is problematic is if the big problem fixes 90 percent of the world and the value is distributed inequitably. The problem is not solved because rising costs of solving the last ten percent which is equal to the cost of the first 90 percent is valued at closer to the full value of reduction not calculating the rising cost of avoidance that accrues in the the 10%. So any value accrued in a partial solution must be returned to in full to the 10% in order to count it as a solution because then the cost of net avoidance would drop relative to net cost of problem because the problem is reduced by an order of 1 with only a cost of 90%. Therein lies the problem with bottom up solving. There is no incentive to solve the problem of many if the cost of solving the problem for one is greater than cost avoided by all but because a potential solution is misjudged as a solution by the incentive of the relative low cost of solving the problem for the first 90% is valued as a 90% reduction of the problem the cost of avoidance to value of gain for only the 30% then
There is much more to this...work in progress will be back
Please put in big letters on the main page and create the "idea combinatory solutions chain" where people post solutions and they are added to one of three feeds, solution, problem, or potential in their respective place based on logic with the fundamental start on the solution side as provides individual benefit to all and the fundamental starting point on the problem side is causing injury to anything greater than the benefit it provides to that thing; then offer to allow contributors pro rata share in original ideas based on their location in the hierarchy of the solution side and the number of problems deleted with weight given to their hierarchy. Profit being valued as the reduction of problems beginning with a value for problems that is equal to the value of solutions (note: the idea chain will not include in the solutions or harm side ideas that benefit some but don’’t benefit all nor will it put in the problem side ideas that benefit more than they harm, rather these will go in the third chain as potential which will switch to their respective location in the chain when they are perfected. All ideas will be entered and all ideas add value to solution as presenting opportunity for reducing problems inherent in a system where without hierarchy solutions are not given their relative weight
Contributors responsible for moving potential into the benefit side will receive a percentage share of the increase in profits gained by the entire idea chain. The percent profit allocated to the idea chain alone will be the percent of the ideas that chain makes up of the entire chain which begins at the fundamental idea. The percent increase of the profit from each point on the hierarchal chain will be determined by the number of ideas in the chain such that the highest idea on the chain receives allocation of profits that are 1/the number of ideas in the chains) ^2 greater than the percentage increase of the lower idea with the lowest idea being assigned a value of 1/the number of ideas in the chain above the immediately more fundamental idea on the chain order idea with the most fundamental idea on the chain getting a value that is 1/number of ideas on the chain greater percent than the higest ideadthe higher order idea given a value of one being percentage of eac value lower than the each more fundamental idea on the chain with the on the chain between it and the lowest including t. The share of profit from the chain’s increase in profit that is distributed to the entire group will be divided equally among the entire group as the cause of the gains was not specific to any individual outside the chain but rather the presence of each element in the chain contributed equally by allowing for an increase that they did not contribute towards outside of their supporting a chain that causes opportunity for increase in profits. group will be distributed equally to every idea on the chain and every reduced idea not appearing in the problem side or potential side related to the entire group will be distributed equally among every contributer and all higher order ideas which will be distributed on a pro rata basis with the percent difference between the value of each higher and lower share given to each idea on the . The percentage while the total percentage of profit attributable to the chain’s the increase of profit is distributed on a pro rata basis to higher level less fundamental solutions above that branch in the chain. The increase in profits not attributable to the chain will be divided among all contributors on a pro rata basis based on their hierarchy. The percent difference between the distributed increase gains on the chain will be relative to the number of higher level ideas above it on the chain a. Thus percentage increase in higher level ideas Note that ideas that cause the reduction of solutions without the increase of problems will be assigned half of the value associated with its location on the chain while reduced ideas will be given half share of all profits related to all ideas on the chain above the reduction point. Thus receiving half of prorata distribution to all higher level ideas regardless of position on the chain of there deleted idea. This recognizes future gains on past contributions related to all previous contributions that allowed for the reduction thereby causing the gain. Note the half share of profit increase on all higher level ideas is shared equally among all higher level contributers while the other half of the gains will be distributed on the existing hiararchal ocation in the chain. While half share of profits at the reduction point will be attributed to all current and reduced ideas with current ideas with current ideas getting pro ratat share increase in their half such that the half is divided among the higher level ideas on a percentage basis on their location in the chain. Each higher level will then give half of his increase in gains to a pool of reduced vacant ideas which will be distrubuted on a pro rata basis with the highest percent going to the lowest order idea reduced and th lowest percentage to the 17:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Markdumasjr83 (talk)
Markdumasjr83 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)