>
>The Smith set certainly has lots of names. It�s the Smith set, the
>minimal
>dominant set, and now the GeTCha set too.
Yes. GeTChA was Schwartz's term. It's a bit silly, perhaps. I think that
minimal dominant set is the most straightforward, but I can recognize it
by any of the other names as well.
>
>As for the GOCha set the uniion of minimal undominated sets, is that what
>is
>usually called the Schwartz set?
Yes.
>
>Ok, so when you say "minimal dominant set" or "GeTCha set", you�re
>referring to the Smith set, and when you say "GOCha set", you�re
>referring
>to the Schwartz set, right?
Yes.
>
>
>Didn�t you say that Schwartz�s book or article defining the GeTCha set
>was
>written in �86? But from Markus�s posting, Smith wrote about it in �73,
>which seem to justify calling it the Smith set.
Yes.
James
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
