I have no probem with (Archi). > Heitzig: Archi violation can easily happen when, e.g., > a = your only child is shot dead, > b = you receive 1 cent, > c = nothing happens. >If (Archi) would be true, there would have to be a lottery in which > your child is shot dead with some positive probability p, in which you > receive 1 cent otherwise, and which lottery you prefer to nothing > happening. (Heitzig opines Archi is not true for him & tational people.)
--WDS: Au contraire: Archi in the child/cent example is valid for any rational human being with p = 10^(-20). In particular, it is also valid for Heitzig being the human. Disagree? Ok, I'll prove you are lying! First proof. Do you, or do you not, take your child on a car trip, and do you, or do you not, drive at <20 Km/hour the entire trip while festooning your car with flashing lights and constantly sounding your horn? Q.E.D. Second proof. Have you, or have you not, erected a meteor shield over your house? Q.E.D. I would have more of a problem with (Tot), if I had a problem (which I don't). > Heitzig 3.5: Deriving "social utility = mean individual utility" --WDS: I don't understand Heitzig's "derivation" here. I.e. I do not see why "MonT" is the same thing as "social utility = mean individual utility". What if Social Utility = (sum of individual utilities)^3 ? --WDS: I have considered these issues too. I direct your attention to puzzles #36, 37, 38, 39, 44 here http://rangevoting.org/PuzzlePage.html for some of my thoughts. -- Warren D. Smith http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking "endorse" as 1st step) and math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
