Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Here’s my “theoretical explanation." Consider the possibilities:
1. 95% from 5%
2. 80% from 20%
4. 60% from 40%
Number 1 certainly happens, but it’s getting damn close to “only one thing is important” Number 3 also happens, but it isn’t more than a stone’s throw from “everything is equally important.” Processes that obey those principles just don’t get thought of in the same way as things that “obey” Pareto’s principle. Throw in a little tolerance for variation and everything else, say 70 to 90% from 30 to 10% looks like fundamentally confirming evidence for Pareto.
John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona
On Dec 15, 2018, at 1:02 PM, bernard cleyet <bernard@cleyet.org> wrote:
Is there a theoretical explanation for the Pareto principle?
bc
_______________________________________________
______________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l