Kevin Venzke wrote: > --- Rob LeGrand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > > I'm using what I believe is Markus Schulze's definition of Landau > > winners: > > > > "Candidate A is a Landau winner iff for every other candidate B at > > least one of the following two statements is correct: > > (1) A >= B. > > (2) There is a candidate C such that A >= C >= B." > > > > where >= means "beats or ties pairwise". It's the same thing as > > Smith except that the beatpaths can be of length at most two. You > > could easily define a "Schwartz-Landau" set that may give you what > > you were expecting by changing "beats or ties pairwise" in the above > > definition to "beats pairwise". Such a set would always be a subset > > of the Landau set and of the Schwartz set. > > Ok. In either case, isn't it conceivable that the set is totally empty?
Yeah, I was a bit hasty as I wrote that. The above makes rough intuitive sense, but carefully defining a "Schwartz-Landau" set may be a bit trickier than I assumed because of the precise way Schwartz must be defined so as to avoid the empty set. I'll investigate defining a Schwartz-Landau set when I can make the time, unless Markus or someone else has already thought about it. -- Rob LeGrand, psephologist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Citizens for Approval Voting http://www.approvalvoting.org/ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
