Forest Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If I had your definition (of voting method) in your language (formal or > not), I might be able to give a definition (to your satisfaction) of what > I consider a voting system to be in the same (or similar) language, so > that you could, for example, see how Buddha Buck's definition of Approval > fits into that general framework.
In private email, Craig complained that I ignored negative, rational, and transendental vote counts. I replied that I also ignored algebraic irrational, transfinite, complex and quaternion vote counts as well -- intentionally. He also made some comment about improperly negating negatives, but I think that that was a miscommunicaiton error. I suspect that when he saw me saying A(X) = |v1| + |v2| > A(Y) = |v1| + |v3| so that, by subtracting |v1| from both sides, I get |v2| > |v3| (and therefore, X is preferred to Y more than Y is preferred to X), he assumed that |v1| meant the absolute value of v1. In that case, either v2 > v3 or v3 > v2 could be true, depending on the signs and magnitudes of v2 and v3. But since v2 and v3 were defined sets, the standard notation |v2| means (to me) the cardinality of the set v2, and likewise for v3. In that case, it makes no sence to discuss v2 > v3 or vice-versa, because v2 and v3 aren't comparable by >. > > We're having trouble communicating, and we don't want to take a chance of > some good ideas being lost because of that :-) > > Forest
