Re: RFD: Reviving Constitutional amendment: Smith/Condorcet vote tallying
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 10:25:24AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> In any event, as I stated before, I had dropped the use of "preferred"
> in favor of "beat path" because "beat path" is used in the technical
> literature on voting systems and seems to have a precise definition
> which agrees with the definition I'm using.
Yup, I just found it incredibly confusing trying to remember if a beat
path from A to B meant A beats C, beats D, beats B, or the other way
around.
> > It might be better to recast the calculation of the "Schwartz set"
> > in terms of "defeats" rather than "beats".
> The definition of schwartz set I used requires transitive closure, and is
> thus tied to the term "beat path". Other than that, I suspect you
> could be right.
Well, "defeat path" then :)
So what's the draft look like now? How many years did it take for us to
manage to agree on this? :)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''
Reply to: