On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 10:24:10AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> I think we are loosing the track again. What is the problem you are
> trying to solve here? I think that your draft in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was really ok.
Hmm... that says
< If there are defeats between options in the Schwar
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:05:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I think we should separate the definition of terminology of
> defeats from the details of constructions of the Schwartz set.
I think we are loosing the track again. What is the problem you are
trying to solve here?
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 12:15:59PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Like so?
Yes, I like this approach much better.
A minor issue:
> 6. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then [...]
Could we write something like "When there are no more defeats left in
the Schwartz
Hello,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:18:33AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> However, given that "defeats" is a verb and we're using "defeat" as a
> noun, maybe it would be clearer to say:
>
> 4. We construct the Schwartz set based on undropped options and
> defeats:
>a. The vot
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 11:28:06AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> How does the version in the message with Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> look?
Hmm... focussing on this issue of "dropped defeats" and
"transitive defeats":
<4. From the list of undropped options, we generate a list
>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:44:56 +1000,
>> Anthony Towns said:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 09:29:57PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:56:03AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>> >On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:05:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> > > >> Raul Miller <[E
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:22:00AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> ... which is exactly why I am using the idea of a list. Nowhere does it say
> (in my text) that you can re-add a defeat to that list, and indeed that is
> never done, so
>
> > If that's the case, perhaps it's worth adding a phra
Hi,
Anthony Towns wrote:
> It doesn't. Once defeats are dropped, they are *entirely* irrelevant to
> the vote, and it's utterly useless to have terms that refer to them.
>
True.
> A minimalist change is just to add the qualifier "undropped" to lots of
> places:
>
Well, if you want to do that...
Hi,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, it may be that Manoj is concerned that once the transitive
> defeat is gone the reason for dropping the defeat is gone.
>
... which is exactly why I am using the idea of a list. Nowhere does it say
(in my text) that you can re-add a defeat to that list, and
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 09:29:57PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:56:03AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > It doesn't. Once defeats are dropped, they are *entirely* irrelevant to
> > the vote, and it's utterly useless to have terms that refer to them.
> However, it may
On Sat, Apr 19, 2003 at 09:56:03AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It doesn't. Once defeats are dropped, they are *entirely* irrelevant to
> the vote, and it's utterly useless to have terms that refer to them.
That's true.
However, it may be that Manoj is concerned that once the transitive
defeat i
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:05:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
We're not going to ever get anywhere here, are we?
> >> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > I've also made explicit that only undropped defeats are used in
> > determining the schwartz set.
> Whoa there. I think A tr
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 17:54:46 -0400,
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > I've also made explicit that only undropped defeats are used in
>> > determining the schwartz set.
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:05:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Whoa there. I think A transitively de
> > I've also made explicit that only undropped defeats are used in
> > determining the schwartz set.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 04:05:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Whoa there. I think A transitively defeats option C if a
> defeats B and B defeats C, whether or not the defeat is drop
Hi,
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Like so?
I think this looks good. IMHO the language is sufficiently clear that
defeat-the-verb and defeat-the-gerund don't need to be defined separately.
IMHO, my separation of the "build the list of defeats" and "drop the
weakest defeats" steps sidesteps any nee
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:40:03 -0400,
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Here's A.6.4 rephrased with an explicit definition for "defeat",
> the noun.
> I've also made explicit that only undropped defeats are used in
> determining the schwartz set.
Whoa there. I think A tran
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 12:09:18PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Unfortnatly, for me this has become les clear. Until this
> point, I the verb defeat was undefined; and I think we need to define
> defeat the verb before we define defeat the gerund.
Ok...
Here's A.6.4 rephrased with a
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:22:37 +0200,
>> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Proposed change to make this more clear:
> A.6. 4. From the list of undropped options, we generate a list of
> pairwise defeats. [ insert A.6.4.a and A.6.4.b ]
> 5. We construct the Schwartz set. [ i
>> On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:18:33 -0400,
>> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> However, given that "defeats" is a verb and we're using "defeat" as
> a noun, maybe it would be clearer to say:
> 4. We construct the Schwartz set based on undropped options and
> defeats:
> a. The vo
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 18:15, Jochen Voss wrote:
> > 5. If there are defeats between options in the Schwartz set, we
...
> > 6. If there are no defeats within the Schwartz set, then ..
> How could there be defeats within the Schwartz set at this point?
Read 5 and 6 together. If there a d
On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 12:42:44AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
> > 5. If there are defeats between options in the Schwartz set, we
> > drop the weakest such defeats, and return to step 4.
> >a. A defeat (A,X) is weaker than a defeat (B,Y) if V(A,X)
>
> The normal comm
Hi,
Jochen Voss wrote:
>
> But I have no clear idea how to drop "drop a defeat". I guess it's
> just a problem with my english, but how do I do it? Do I clear some
> cells in the tally table? Maybe one or two or a complete row?
>
From the table ...
A B C
A 5 1
B 2 7
C 6 0
... you constru
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 07:14:46PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Did you miss the first sentence?
Yes, I did miss the first sentence. Sorry!
> > > 5. If there are defeats between options in the Schwartz set, we
> > > drop the weakest such defeats, and return to step 4.
>
> > I
>> On 18 Apr 2003 00:42:44 -0400,
>> Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Most of these seem to be style issues, I'll comment inline.
> On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 10:57, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
>> results are not r
On Thu, 2003-04-17 at 10:57, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 3. Votes are taken by the Project Secretary. Votes, tallies, and
>results are not revealed during the voting period; after the
>vote the Project Secretary lists all the votes cast.
"Votes, tallies, and results are not reve
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > 3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
> > by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
> > a. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters
> >
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 09:57:40AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 3. Any (non-default) option which does not defeat the default option
> by its required majority ratio is dropped from consideration.
> a. Given two options A and B, V(A,B) is the number of voters
>
Hi,
Here is the version with the recent suggestions.
manoj
__
DRAFT:
__
Under 4.2 Procedure [for developers duri
28 matches
Mail list logo
