On 8/23/10, Warren Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Alex Small > > your FBC manuscript looks interesting. The typesetting is sometimes > annoying (use of * for multiply). > > Kevin Venzke is quite right he invented MDDA not me. > Ossipoff has 2 Fs. Warren D. Smith has a "D." > > Your paper is long. It needs to be written to be more accessible. > Think how to provide fast-access routes for the reader who wants to > know certain things (make a list of what things various typical readers > might want to know, and find a way to make them be able to find it fast). > > Like put a table of contents, table of FBC-complaint methods, index, > I dunno. It is not easy for a newbie to quickly assimilate what's > important in your paper. > > See also the end of http://rangevoting.org/FBCsurvey.html > where the Smith-Simmons theorem is mentioned, see > http://rangevoting.org/SimmonsSmithPf.html > > somehow I feel this theorem has heavy importance and you ought to > discuss it to some degree. > > Among your SFBC compliant methods, you might want to compare. Which > should we like and why. > > But I haven't really read the thing yet :) > > > -- > Warren D. Smith > http://RangeVoting.org <-- add your endorsement (by clicking > "endorse" as 1st step) > and > math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html
4. Linearity: The conditions for a candidate to win can be expressed by a series simple inequalities that are linear in the tallies of the ballot types. --that was bogus english grammar. Do you mean "boolean combination (via AND, OR, NOT) of linear inequalities"?? Note the result would be nonlinear anyway, since I don't know what you meant on key axiom, this paper is currently dead right there. And quit with the * for multiply. 5. "Generic decisiveness" might be better name. E.g. with random real numbers as the vote counts, prob=1 get a unique winner. Or full measure, if like measures not probs. Based on the geometric properties of the boundaries, we will clas- sify SFBC-compliant election methods into 4 distinct categories. OK, how about right here: I. ... II. ... III. ... IV. ... Because your bleeping discussion right here now, is super annoying. etc. ditions are expressed as sets of linear inequalities, we get: IF (p,u11)>0 seems like a major typo here. Elec- tion methods can generally be specified as procedure defined by a series 10 of if-then-else statements regarding the numbers of voters submitting different ballot types. --well, that was vague. If you had a precise axiom back there (like my boolean AND suggestion above) you could here make a precise claim. As it is, you are just asserting something with no proof which I see no reason to buy, nor is it even clear exactly what is meant. We will refer to a set of conditions related by symmetry operations as a ”stage” of an election method. Definition 3 Given... --that also was vague. This is not living up to the precision+clarity it takes to write a math paper "definition." ...hum. Well, looking further, I'm not happy about the writing as it stands now. I think it has a long way to go to make the writing get good, tight, clear, precise. Try to make your theorems & defns standalone readable, or if not, at least with backpointers to the stuff needed to comprehend it. As for the correctness and importance of your results, I currently have no opinion since I still don't know what they are. ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
