# Milton Friedman and Maximizing Profits **URL:** \ **Category:** Unbounded\ **Tags:** economics\ **Created:** [January 1, 2025, 7:28pm UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/milton-friedman-and-maximizing-profits/1991 "2025-01-01T19:28:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 82
**Author:** ![LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/user_avatar/discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/lmd/32/3213_2.png) [@LMD](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/u/LMD)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2025, 1:20am UTC](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/milton-friedman-and-maximizing-profits/1991/82 "2025-01-26T01:20:18Z")
> [@Elliot](#): > > 1. x=5,y=5 > 2. x=4,y=10 > 3. x=11,y=1 > [@Elliot](#): > > minimum(x,y) (1) > [@Elliot](#): > > FYI, the minimum function returns the lowest number from all its inputs. Is this an error? From what I understand it seems like the answer should be option 3. It looks like you maybe put the lowest value input (1) as the answer and not the option with the lowest value (3). If so, option 1 won 0 times. And so none of those equations could represent what my intuition said when I said option 1 maximised x and y. * * * > [@Elliot](#): > > Does maximizing x and y (or more generally, maximizing two or more things) have a clear, well-defined answer? For it to have a clear answer, it’d need a corresponding expression like the ones in your list. (correct?) Do I think any on that list mean: both x and y? The two obvious candidates for that are: x + y x \* y in binary logic multiplication was like AND but I think that only worked with binary logic. I’m not sure about x + y. Something doesn’t seem right about it. If you knew how to convert x into y, you might be able to maximise them both? You’d be converting the problem into a problem of maximising one thing. (None of the other candidates on that list seem like plausible options.) I don’t know. I think I’m stuck. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.criticalfallibilism.com/t/milton-friedman-and-maximizing-profits/1991)._