James, --- James Green-Armytage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit: > Kevin Venzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >I find your choice of words amusing. By analogy, if no one drops a > >bomb on me then I'm "inconclusively-exploded." > > I'm not sure if I understand the analogy. Using my UMID terminology (not > something I'm terribly attached to, but anyway...), if there is a majority > A>B pairwise beat, then B is "conclusively dominated" by A. If there is a > non-majority A>B pairwise beat, then B is "inconclusively dominated" by A. > However, come to think of it, that language might be somewhat misleading > since a "conclusively dominated" candidate can still win. Oh well.
What I find funny is that B can be "inconclusively dominated" by A, and "conclusively dominate" A, at the same time. > When did Markus propose the Smith/truncation set? Was it before Woodall's > CDTT? Can you provide a link? It was 1997: http://listserver.dreamhost.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/1997-May/001484.html Kevin Venzke _____________________________________________________________________________ Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 1 Go d'espace de stockage pour vos mails, photos et vidéos ! Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info