It would be useful for newcomers to have the acronyms spelled out the
first time they are used in each e-mail, e.g. , SFC, GSFC, SDSC, WDSC,
FBC, CW, ERIRV, AERLO, etc., or point to reference where they are defined.
Thanks,
Jim Ronback
Russ Paielli wrote:
............
In any case, I must admit that I was naive when I started the website
with Mike. I had assumed that his criteria were more or less widely
accepted by the EM community, but only later did I realize that they
may be a "Mike-only" sort of deal. Perhaps someone here can help me
understand the situation. Are Mike's criteria such as SFC, GSFC, SDSC,
WDSC, and FBC "widely" recognized, or do they live only in Mike's mind?
Finally, a little "friendly" advice to Mike. He probably won't take
it, but the loss will only be his. I suggest that he formally document
his criteria in one or more technical papers and submit them to
peer-reviewed journals or conferences. I don't even know which
journals or conferences would be appropriate, but there must be some.
Perhaps someone can suggest some.
By the way, conference papers are easier to get accepted than journal
papers, but they require travel. Then again, if Mike is really serious
(and he certainly seems to think he is), he should eventually meet
some of his colleagues in person. You can't build a "career" on an
email list.
--Russ
MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
I forgot to include all the wording that I intended for the
equilibrium criteria:
And a different naming might be good too.
Falsifyingness:
A method is falsifying if, with that method, there are situations
(configurations of candidates and voter preferences) in which there
is a CW, and there are no Nash equilibria in which the CW wins and no
one reverses a preference.
[end of falsifyingness definition]
Expressiveness:
A method is expressive if, with that method, every situation with a
CW has at least one Nash equilibrium in which the CW wins and no one
votes a less-liked candidate equal to or over a more-liked candidate
(as I define that).
[end of expressiveness definition]
Also, instead of the name that I suggested for the criterion relating
to James´ co-operation/defection dilemma, let me instead just say
that methods that have that dilemma are "defection-vulnerable" or
"defection-prone".
So I´ve defined falsifyingness, expressiveness, and defection-proneness.
Of course any method that is expressive is nonfalsifying.
When a method is said to be falsifying, non-falsifying, expressive,
or non-expressive, that term should be followed by "a", "s1", or
"s2", depending on which voting extension of Nash equilibrium is
being referred to. If those terms are used without that designation,
then "a" is the default assumption. The "a" versions of
nonfalsifyingness or expressiveness are the most demanding versions.
I defined "a", "s1", & "s2" in a posting yesterday.
But I´d like to replace "a" with "ac", so that it won´t need the
quotation marks to disinguish it from the word "a".
I haven´t examined many methods for these properties, but Approval is
nonfalsifying, so are the wv Condorcet versions. And
BeatpathWinner/CSSD and RP are probably expressive. Maybe also
Bucklin, and ERIRV and Kevin´s Approval elimination when they have
AERLO.
Pluralitly, IRV, and Condorcet(margins) are falsifying, in all of
that term´s versions ("a", "s1", & "s2").
I expect that methods that meet WDSC are nonfalsifying, and that
methods that meet SDSC are expressive, but I´m not sure whether those
properties always coincide.
Mike Ossipoff
----
Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
