Re: [Phys-L] Pareto

[brian whatcott <betwys1@sbcglobal.net>]

Another rule of thumb when no better data are available:

You can raise the price by 10% without seeing much customer rejection:
You can add 10% identifiably different ethnic folks to a culture without 
triggering adverse public response;
You can vary the ingredients in the recipe by 10% without the result
 becoming a disaster.

Brian W


On 12/15/2018 3:39 PM, Albert J. Mallinckrodt wrote:
> 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