>> On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 12:44:56 +1000,
>> Anthony Towns <[email protected]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> > > > I've also made explicit that only undropped defeats are used in
>> > > > determining the schwartz set.
>> > > Whoa there. I think A transitively defeats option C if a
>> > > defeats B and B defeats C, whether or not the defeat is dropped.
>> > >
>> > 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.
I was not aware I was doing so. My sense is that defeats, and
transitive defeats, are concepts that exist outside of the mechanism
for determining a winner.
>> However, it may be that Manoj is concerned that once the
>> transitive defeat is gone the reason for dropping the defeat is
>> gone.
I had actually not thought of that; I am not sure I even
follow the logic.
> No, I think you'll find Manoj is saying that "transitive defeat"
> doesn't include the word "undropped" so should just refer to the
> obvious and logical thing, applying any defeat that exists,
> transitively. Just as a a cleanliness of terminology thing.
Yes,
>> Refering to the message with id
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you still have the
>> potential ambiguity that "transitive defeat" is defined in terms
>> of "defeats" not in terms of "the list of undropped defeats".
How does the version in the message with Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> look?
manoj
--
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. Benjamin Franklin
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
