--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> C > 31% of +2 -> log(7)=0.84 > 69% of +1 -> log(6)=0.78 > > Expected: 0.80 > > D > 45% of -1 -> log(4)=0.60 > 55% of +4 -> log(9)=0.95 > > Expect: 0.79 > The numbers labeled Expected: and Expect: are the expected utility of the random event. It is often useful to convert that back to a certain equivalent using the inverse of the utility function. The incremental certain amount for C is +1.29, for D it is +1.25. That means that a person with a log utility function and starting position of 5 would be indifferent between a certain offer of an additional +1.29 and a chance to play a game that offers a 69% chance at getting an additional +1 and a 31% chance of getting an additional +2. In this sense, personal utility functions can vary rather significantly, from varying shapes of risk averse (increasing and concave), to risk neutral (an increasing straight line), to various shapes of risk seeking (increasing convex). The shape of a personal utility function can vary from person to person, and is simply a matter of personal preference. The personal utility functions that are positive linear functions of each other are essentially the same and are empirically indistinquishable. In other words, if f(x) is a utility function, then g(x) = a * f(x) + b, for any a>0 and any b is also a utility function that will always give the same certain equivalent amount for a given random event. That also means such personal utility values are useful for describing personal indifference to uncertain outcomes, but they are not something that can be used to aggregate utility among a group of people. > > A. Sincere. This voter rates the candidates sincerely even if > this means > > he doesn't use the top or bottom ratings. > > B. Maximized sincere. This is the same as A, except that the > best and > > worst candidates are moved to the 10 and 0 positions, in order > to > > maximize the weight between these two candidates. If a voter is to sincerely range vote based on their personal utility of the outcomes, then A is not well-defined and may not be possible. That is an example of why I sought some clarification at http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2006-October/018681.html about what exactly a sincere or honest range vote was, and what exactly it was that Range Voting was purportedly maximizing. -- David Cary ____________________________________________________________________________________ Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates (http://voice.yahoo.com) ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
