> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:50:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [b] Gives a result which is less like condorcet than "drop all failed
> > supermajority before CpSSD".
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:52:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, how do you figure:
>
> 40 A B D (A requires 3:1 supe
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:52:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I don't think such cases exist (I'm working on how to show this). On the
> > other hand, there are cases where "drop all failed supermajority before
> > CpSSD" gives results which are less like condorcet than "Hybrid Theory".
>
>
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > (Ah, assertions without examples. How helpful.)
>
> [ Example ]
> c wins
>
c would win without any supermajority rule, so there's no need to remove
option A in the first place, so there's no problem.
IMHO, option A should only be removed if it would win, but doesn't satisfy
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:52:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you want a more complicated example, try:
> 40 A B C F (A requires 3:1 supermajority, F is the default option)
> 10 C B F A
> 10 F C B A
> which Condorcet would rank as A first, B second, C third and F last;
> bu
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:51:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> A defeats b 8:3
> c defeats A 8:3
> b defeats c 6:5
> eliminate 6:5
Sorry, I don't buy this. You're looking to choose amongst A, b, c and
N to work out what should be done. A can't win, since it doesn't have
supermajority support, leav
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:15:55AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm sorry, I didn't follow the special casing you do for "superdefeats".
> Here's the corrected example:
>
> 40 A B C F (A requires 3:1 supermajority, F is the default option)
> 10 C B F A
> 10 F C A B
>
> F
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:29:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sorry, I don't buy this.
Ok.
I'm wondering if other people agree. [I wish Buddha wasn't
on vacation, this was his example.]
> > > Define "like Condorcet".
> > Same outcome as Condorcet for the same votes.
>
> Heh. Condorcet doesn
尊敬的阁下您好：
网络营销已担任企业商务的重要角色，大多数的国内
外企业已开始实施自己全面的网络营销计划，所以网络营
销工具成为企业通过互联网进行商务活动的必不可少部分。
大路网络营销全集汇集网络营销所具备的一切工具，真正
的帮助企业通过互联网全面开拓市场、寻求全球买家、
疯狂增加销售订单、树立企业形象、将企业广告投入缩减
为零。
详情请点击访问：http://www.yuefeng2000.com/index-e.htm
访问我们的站点：http://www.yuefeng2000.com
购买24小时咨询电话：025-2207744，2210862
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:29:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sorry, I don't buy this.
Ok.
I'm wondering if other people agree. [I wish Buddha wasn't
on vacation, this was his example.]
Sorry... I'm back, but my computer at home is having some problems (old
power su
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:08:41PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I didn't follow the special casing you do for "superdefeats".
> False: once again you're eliminating a defeat of an option involved
> in a superdefeat, but the proposal requires that the superdefeated
> option be eliminated
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 06:48:58PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> A->b->c->A
> where A is a supermajority option, and b, c are normal options and the
> b->c defeat was the weakest.
> (late-dropping): c won, because we discounted the votes of the people
> that preferred b over c, but counted the vot
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 07:06:07PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Raul Miller:
> > > (Ah, assertions without examples. How helpful.)
> > [ Example ]
> > c wins
> c would win without any supermajority rule, so there's no need to remove
> option A in the first place, so there's no problem.
Yes, th
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:51:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ah. Same thing still applies though, all you need is some way to make the B
> versus C defeat eliminated before you do whatever special casing you have.
>
> 40 A B C F
> 10 A C B F
> 10 F C B A
>
> F superdef
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:50:11PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > [b] Gives a result which is less like condorcet than "drop all failed
> > supermajority before CpSSD".
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:52:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Uh, how do you figure:
>
> 40 A B D (A requires 3:1 supe
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:52:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I don't think such cases exist (I'm working on how to show this). On the
> > other hand, there are cases where "drop all failed supermajority before
> > CpSSD" gives results which are less like condorcet than "Hybrid Theory".
>
>
Hi,
Raul Miller:
> > (Ah, assertions without examples. How helpful.)
>
> [ Example ]
> c wins
>
c would win without any supermajority rule, so there's no need to remove
option A in the first place, so there's no problem.
IMHO, option A should only be removed if it would win, but doesn't satisfy
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:52:13PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> If you want a more complicated example, try:
> 40 A B C F (A requires 3:1 supermajority, F is the default option)
> 10 C B F A
> 10 F C B A
> which Condorcet would rank as A first, B second, C third and F last;
> bu
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:15:55AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> I'm sorry, I didn't follow the special casing you do for "superdefeats".
> Here's the corrected example:
>
> 40 A B C F (A requires 3:1 supermajority, F is the default option)
> 10 C B F A
> 10 F C A B
>
> F
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:29:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sorry, I don't buy this.
Ok.
I'm wondering if other people agree. [I wish Buddha wasn't
on vacation, this was his example.]
> > > Define "like Condorcet".
> > Same outcome as Condorcet for the same votes.
>
> Heh. Condorcet doesn
×𾴵ĸóÏÂÄúºÃ£º
ÍøÂçÓªÏúÒѵ£ÈÎÆóÒµÉÌÎñµÄÖØÒª½ÇÉ«£¬´ó¶àÊýµÄ¹úÄÚ
ÍâÆóÒµÒÑ¿ªÊ¼ÊµÊ©×Ô¼ºÈ«ÃæµÄÍøÂçÓªÏú¼Æ»®£¬ËùÒÔÍøÂçÓª
Ïú¹¤¾ß³ÉΪÆóҵͨ¹ý»¥ÁªÍø½øÐÐÉÌÎñ»î¶¯µÄ±Ø²»¿ÉÉÙ²¿·Ö¡£
´ó·ÍøÂçÓªÏúÈ«¼¯»ã¼¯ÍøÂçÓªÏúËù¾ß±¸µÄÒ»Çй¤¾ß£¬ÕæÕý
µÄ°ïÖúÆóҵͨ¹ý»¥ÁªÍøÈ«Ã濪ÍØÊг¡¡¢Ñ°ÇóÈ«ÇòÂò¼Ò¡¢
·è¿ñÔö¼ÓÏúÊÛ¶©µ¥¡¢Ê÷Á¢ÆóÒµ
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:51:27AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> A defeats b 8:3
> c defeats A 8:3
> b defeats c 6:5
> eliminate 6:5
Sorry, I don't buy this. You're looking to choose amongst A, b, c and
N to work out what should be done. A can't win, since it doesn't have
supermajority support, leav
Raul Miller wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 04:29:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Sorry, I don't buy this.
Ok.
I'm wondering if other people agree. [I wish Buddha wasn't
on vacation, this was his example.]
Sorry... I'm back, but my computer at home is having some problems (old
power sup
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:08:41PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I didn't follow the special casing you do for "superdefeats".
> False: once again you're eliminating a defeat of an option involved
> in a superdefeat, but the proposal requires that the superdefeated
> option be eliminated
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:51:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Ah. Same thing still applies though, all you need is some way to make the B
> versus C defeat eliminated before you do whatever special casing you have.
>
> 40 A B C F
> 10 A C B F
> 10 F C B A
>
> F superdef
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 06:48:58PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> A->b->c->A
> where A is a supermajority option, and b, c are normal options and the
> b->c defeat was the weakest.
> (late-dropping): c won, because we discounted the votes of the people
> that preferred b over c, but counted the vot
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 07:06:07PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Raul Miller:
> > > (Ah, assertions without examples. How helpful.)
> > [ Example ]
> > c wins
> c would win without any supermajority rule, so there's no need to remove
> option A in the first place, so there's no problem.
Yes, th
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:34:32PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 01:51:34PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Ah. Same thing still applies though, all you need is some way to make the B
> > versus C defeat eliminated before you do whatever special casing you have.
> > 40 A B
27 matches
Mail list logo
