Mr Smith obviously doesn't understand English any more than he does math. Mis-quoting me and mis-charactizing my arguments is proof of that.
What I said, in plain English, is that since there are multiple decompositions of a pairwise matrix that would lead to the same pairwise matrix, it would be more logical to begin vote-counting from ballots instead of from the pairwise matrix. I don't expect him to understand, but let us not allow his mis-understandings to characterize my post. > -----Original Message----- > From: Warren Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 7:26 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [EM] I think Bishop's deconstruction algorithm fails > > > no, I meant Bishop's alg would fail to fid ANY deconstruction > even when one > existed. The problem was not, as Kislanko worries, that > there might be > a non-unique solution. That is a valid worry, but I do not > care about that > worry. > > Also, to reply some more to Kislanko, he argued that "a > condorcet matrix" > is one arising from ballots, therefore he fails to understand how > a matirx could exist which does not arise from ballots. > > Well, one reply to that is "duh." Another reply is, there > are matrices > which do not arise from ballots. It is an interesting question which > matrices are achievable and which are not. > > Bishop's algoorithm if it works (which I doubt) would answer > that question. > I have a method involving solving an integer program which > does answer the > question, but only at heavy computational cost. Bishop's method > if it works would have mild computational cost. > My method works and I doubt Bishop's works, but it would be nice > to produce an explicit counterexample to Bishop's algorithm. > wds > ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
