I have suggested this enough times that I think we should just abbreviate it to
IWBUFNTHHTASOTFTTAUIEE. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ] On Behalf Of Jim & Mary Ronback > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:12 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [EM] Acronyms need to spelled out > > 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 Jamesī co-operation/defection dilemma, let me instead just say > >> that methods that have that dilemma are "defection-vulnerable" or > >> "defection-prone". > >> > >> So Iīve 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 Iīd like to replace "a" with "ac", so that it wonīt need the > >> quotation marks to disinguish it from the word "a". > >> > >> I havenīt 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 Kevinīs Approval elimination when they have > >> AERLO. > >> > >> Pluralitly, IRV, and Condorcet(margins) are falsifying, in all of > >> that termīs versions ("a", "s1", & "s2"). > >> > >> I expect that methods that meet WDSC are nonfalsifying, and that > >> methods that meet SDSC are expressive, but Iīm not sure > whether those > >> properties always coincide. > >> > >> Mike Ossipoff > >> > >> > > > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em > for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info