I'd said:
>I'm not agreeing yet that RC passes IIAC, because I haven't >rechecked and printed-out the definition yet, but maybe it >does. Markus replied: When Mike cannot see that under "Random Candidate" the probability that a given candidate X is elected can only decrease when additional candidates are nominated, then I cannot help him. I reply: Take a look at my paragraph that you quoted above. It was right in front of your face. I'd said I wasn't agreeing with you _because I hadn't rechecked & printed-out your definition._ Whether the probability that a given candidate X is elected can only decrease when additional candidates are nominated doesn't mean anything with respect to compliance with your definition unless that's what your definition is about. Since, as I said, I hadn't printed your definition out, and didn't have it available at that time, I couldn't say whether or not RC complies with your criterion. It might seem pointless to say that I don't necessarily agree, because I don't have your definition handy, but I said it to avoid any unintened implication that I was agreeing with something that I don't know the accuracy of. Next time, read what you're replying to before you reply. Mike Ossipoff _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
