Mike wrote:
>
>Oh, so that's what you were doing--getting serious points across :-)
>Actually you weren't getting anything across. Except for some sort of
>unexplained intent to dump a nonsense reply on my posting.
The intention of my posting was to show you'all my arrow diagrams. Your
James A.--
You'd said:
See... A, B, and C are in the Schwartz / Smith ? GETCHA / GOCHA /
minimal dominant / minimal undominated set... and D ain't not in the
nuthin'
set.
Ta-da!
I replied:
I'm sorry but the; meaning of that isn't entirely clear. If I could
make
a suggestion, you might not want to p
I didn't think the question was relevant.
Election-Methods folks who refer to voters as "irrational" are missing the
point. Most, if not all, of the vote-counting methods are "irrational", if
by "rational" you mean they have to conform a pre-determined set of axioms,
not all of which are conformed
Hi Jobst,
I'm impressed. I didn't think you could define a coherent B>A>C>B
situation, but it looks like you did:
On Jul 26, 2004, at 1:06 PM, Jobst Heitzig wrote:
1. Would I prefer the situation
(i) "A and B tied on top, A elected" or
(ii) "A and B tie
Dear James,
First of all, I do *not* think that we should make the same mistake as
early economists did in assuming or even requiring too much rationality!
Is it not a bit too arrogant to say to someone, "You are not allowed to
have these preferences since they don't seem rational to me"?
However
