Re: Request for comments [voting amendment]

["Matthias Urlichs" <smurf@noris.de>]

Hi,

Buddha Buck:
> I think we need to come up with better, understandable, language.
> 
Right.

> Is it accurate to say that if x is in the Set, and y>>x, then y is in 
> the set?
> 
Yes.

> Is it accurate to say that if there is no y such that x>>y (i.e., x 
> defeats nothing), then x is NOT in the set?
> 
Yes.

> If we have options A, B, C, D, an A>>B,C,D, B>>C>>D>>B, then {B,C,D} is 
> not the Schwartz Set because A>>B?  A is in the Schwartz Set because 
> there is no x such that x>>A?
> 
Yes.
No -- either there's an x>>A => A is in the Schwartz set, 
or there is no such x => A is th winner.

> What is the Schwartz set for:
> 
> A==B; A>>C,D,E; B>>C,D,E; C>>D>>E>>C?

A and B are the winners. Since these are not reducible, you have a tie.
No rule (with the possible exception of "toss a coin") is going to get
you out of that one.

NB, you can define x>>y as to include the x==y case. It's not particularly
helpful in this case because you can't apply the usual rules to a
two-member Schwartz set, but you could end up with an A==B, B>>C and C>>A
situation.

-- 
Matthias Urlichs     |     noris network AG     |     http://smurf.noris.de/