On Dec 19, 2003, at 3:02 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:
Dear Ernest,
Hi Markus,
Thanks for the prompt reply.
I don't know Python-ish pseudo-code.
I'll try to find ways to make it more English-like, so the algorithm is
clearer.
But in Pascal/C-ish pseudo-code
the Dijkstra algorithm (aka Dykstra algor
Dear Ernest,
you wrote (20 Dec 2003):
> Ah, okay, that was hard for me to deduce from the original algorithm,
> where it seemed like you were primarily calculating margins.
In Section 4 of my paper, I use margins. In Appendix 3 of my paper,
I use absolute numbers of votes for the winner. The pse
Hi Markus,
On Dec 19, 2003, at 6:52 PM, Markus Schulze wrote:
I consider the margins of defeats only when both defeats have the same
absolute number of votes for the winner. The aim is to make the method
more decisive without sacrificing any of the desired properties.
Ah, okay, that was hard for m
Dear Ernest,
you wrote (19 Dec 2003):
> Let me put it another way. Could you please explain in words why you
> feel it is necessary or useful to use *both* absolute votes and margins
> in the calculation? Are the margins used simply to break a tie
> between absolute votes? I think that's what
Dear Ernest,
I don't know Python-ish pseudo-code. But in Pascal/C-ish pseudo-code
the Dijkstra algorithm (aka Dykstra algorithm) looks as follows when
the strength of a pairwise defeat is measured primarily by p1 (= the
absolute number of votes for the winner of this pairwise defeat) and
secondari
Dear Ernest,
> Yes, Stef, time to finish that thesis,
> all this math really is the same.
>From an algorithmic point of view, yes.
But from a behaviour and result point of view,
"min" and "+" produce very different things...
And yes Markus and Mike promote both "min" and
"winning votes". They j
On Dec 19, 2003, at 11:30 AM, Markus Schulze wrote:
We both are recommending strongest paths and absolute votes. There
is absolutely no difference between Mike's and my recommendation.
Ah, thank you! Sorry, I got confused between what you each recommended
and what I was reading about the various
Dear Ernest,
you wrote (19 Dec 2003):
> Even if we agree to use a graph, and a particular graph-traversal
> algorithm, there's still a couple different ways to do the counting
> (i.e., to define the 'best' path we're searching for).
"Beatpath Method", "Beatpath Winner", "Path Voting", "Path Winne
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 10:08:02AM -0800, Ernest Prabhakar wrote:
> From looking at their math, it appears that Markus ("Schulze method")
> is recommending:
> a) shortest path
> b) relative wins
>
> while Mike ("beatpath") is recommending:
> a) strongest path
> b) absolute votes
As I understand
Hi Andrew,
The "Floyd algorithm" is usually called the Floyd-Warshall all-pairs
shortest
path algorithm. This algorithm computes the cost of the "best path" in
a
weighted, directed graph. The notion of 'best' and 'cost' are defined
by two
operations we can call 'min' and '+', respectivelyFo
10 matches
Mail list logo
