Kristopher, That's an interesting question. I feel confident that a stronger result holds than the one I have given, but I don't know how much stronger.
Forest ----- Original Message ----- From: Kristofer Munsterhjelm Date: Saturday, July 17, 2010 0:59 am Subject: Re: [EM] independence form covered alternatives is incompatible with monotonicity To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] > [email protected] wrote: > > Suppose that we have a method that satisfies independence form > covered alternatives, and that gives > > greater winning probability to alternative B in this scenario > > > > 40 B>C>A > > 30 C>A>B > > 30 A>B>C > > > > than in this scenario > > > > 40 D>B>C > > 30 B>C>D > > 30 C>D>B > > > > as any decent method would. > > Could one make a deliberately perverse method that would return > bad > results but would technically pass both independence from > covered > alternatives and monotonicity, or is it possible to make an > absolute > incompatibility proof? > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
