[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Request for comments [voting amendment]

On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:42:37PM -0500, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> AFAICT, your version only gives one level of transitivity, which does
> not necessarily suffice. 

I have retracted it.

> An explicitly iterative version would have to read along the lines of
>   Definition: An option F is in the beat path of option G if option G
>   defeats option F, or if there is a sequence of other options H_1,
>   ..., H_n (where n may be 1) such that H_1 defeats F, G defeats H_n,
>   AND for every i from 1 to n-1, H_{i+1} defeats H_i.
> which I'm not convinced is better.

I don't know.  It's pretty close to Anthony's, which I support, except I
think I see away to avoid the term "beat" altogether (and "dominate",

A minimum of jargon is, I think, a feature.

G. Branden Robinson                |     One man's "magic" is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     engineering.  "Supernatural" is a
branden@debian.org                 |     null word.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- Robert Heinlein

Attachment: pgpLX10BSFJmB.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: