Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Blinky wrote:
>
>> The other vendor's were a bit larger, but not twice the size -- but were
>> twice the price, so that didn't seem like a deal.
>
> "Size" can be a bit misleading. If a sphere has a radius of x inches, then a
> sphere with twice its volume will have a radius of about (1.26 * x) inches.
> You'd hardly expect a 26% increase in radius to double the volume, would
> you? But that's what happens.
>
> It's easier just to go by weight: If the other vendor's beets weighed twice
> as much, then it was appropriate to charge twice as much.

Y'know, the more I think of this, the more I think you're right that they
were at least a quarter larger in diameter, and thus they were both
pricing by approximate weight. Because it's not like those two stalls
were adjacent so that I could take in both displays at a glance. So I'll
bet I wouldn't even have perceived a difference any smaller than than your
example. Also, the only other product for which I noticed prices accross
multiple vendors was strawberries -- and everybody had them at the same
price, $3 per box, $7 for three, without fail. So it's not like the two
beetistas would have been unaware of each other's prices.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html