On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 06:53:52 +0100 Jobst Heitzig wrote:
I suspect I did not emphasize enough so, assume we are doing only n-1, A should win, the cycle is A>B>C>A, and C is the first member found (does not matter if there is a D, for such will be discarded as soon as we have a cycle member).Dear Dave!
You wrote:
Agreed you do not need (n-1)*n/2 pairwise comparisons BUT, seems to me ROWS went too far: It will happily and efficiently return the CW if there is one. It does not know if there is a cycle, though the winner of the n-1 comparisons will, at least, be a cycle member.
Easiest I can think of is another n-1 comparisons to see if the apparent winner is CW or only a cycle member and, if a member, keep going til you have the complete cycle.
That's a nice suggestion for the "justification" step of the method but it doesn't change the winner. Or did you mean to say that a method should not elect a candidate unless it "knows" in which defeat cycles s/he is?
Yours, Jobst
PROVIDED B is the next cycle member, it will take over and recognize A as final winner when found.
BUT IF A is the next cycle member, C will reject it and accept B as final winner when that is found.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] people.clarityconnect.com/webpages3/davek
Dave Ketchum 108 Halstead Ave, Owego, NY 13827-1708 607-687-5026
Do to no one what you would not want done to you.
If you want peace, work for justice.---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
