Forest, --- Forest W Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > >--- Forest W Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ?crit?: > >> This method has the same relationship to Beatpath that MMPO has to > >> MinMax. > > > >So it's Schulze(pairwise opposition)? > > Not quite, because Schulze(pairwise opposition) would eliminate edges > that were not actual defeats.
That's not how I understand that... Otherwise I don't see the difference between Schulze(po) and Schulze(wv). > In GMC, if there are lots of equal ranks, then the majority pairwise > consent graph might be a complete digraph. > > For example, > > 45 A, 30 B, 25 C would have a majority consent arrow in both directions > for each pair of candidates. Yes, I understood that. Incidentally, Woodall calls the level of "consent" for A over B the "doubly-augmented gross score" for A over B. He calls MMPO "MinDAGS." I believe what he calls "DminDAGS" is equivalent to the method you're talking about, in which case it should satisfy plurality, majority for solid coalitions, and clone independence, but not Condorcet or LNHarm. Kevin Venzke ___________________________________________________________________________ Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions ! Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses http://fr.answers.yahoo.com ---- election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info