Dear Craig, you wrote (30 Jan 2005): > Markus wrote (29 Jan 2005): > | Please read: > | > http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/Set%20Operators%20and%20Binary%20Relations.htm > > That webpage does not define the idea of both "prefer" and "strictly prefer". > There is absolutely nothing of interest in the page. Eppley's page is > completely > unable to take the fall for your decision make your "A preferred over B" > Boolean > of the list "(A)" be True when a knowledge of international English can only > lead > to the knowledge that that False would be the correct answer. > > You behave as if the only way to get your office running properly is to > freight > in hundreds of rats and to fend of rising suspicions about your inability to > produce fair voting methods, you keep citing dates and time when sighted at > rat > running past furniture. Here is one 'rat' here: > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Call a binary relation R on a set S transitive if and only if > [[xRy and yRz] implies xRz] for all x,y,z � S. > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Public opinion on what the mathematical idea of an STV ballot paper is, is > solidifed, > so we certainly don't want Mr Steve Eppley's latest views on how to word up a > definition of transitivity.
I mention Steve Eppley's website to show that the concept of binary relations is not used only by me. Of course, I could also say "Go to your nearest library!" or "Search Google for 'binary relations'!" or "Read some scientific journals!" ********************* You wrote (30 Jan 2005): > The webpage of Mr Eppley does not define the word "prefer" and it does > not define the term "strictly prefer". You gave another dud reference > and you did not give the purpose. Maybe it was another mistake. As I said, _how_ you call a concrete binary relation in the end is of no concern as long as it has the required properties. I wrote (12 Feb 2004): > What a "candidate" is or what ">" or "=" means is of no concern as long > as the above six properties are met. For example, the "candidates" can > be sorts of apples and ">" can mean "is sweeter than". ********************* You wrote (30 Jan 2005): > Markus wrote (29 Jan 2005): > | Craig wrote (29 Jan 2005): > | > Mr Schulze didn't mention tests that didn't pass his method. > | > | Already in the published version of my paper, I mention that my method > | violates participation, mono-add-top, mono-remove-bottom, later-no-help, > | and later-no-harm. Furthermore in the extended version of my paper, > | I mention that my method also violates consistency, mono-raise-random, > | mono-sub-top, mono-raise-delete, mono-sub-plump, and independence from > | Pareto-dominated alternatives and that it doesn't guarantee that the > | winner is always chosen from the uncovered set. > > Oh, I got that wrong. You normally have nearly no success in finding me > making mistakes. Good joke! Markus Schulze ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
