On May 12, 2005, at 9:24 PM, Paul Kislanko wrote:
Bart Ingles wrote in respone to
Paul Kislanko wrote:
I would go a little farther. Since Arrow's was a PROOF in
which no one has
found a flaw in over 50 years, I would say that anyone who
has found fault
with it is not a vote theorist.
But Arrow
Curt Siffert siffert at museworld.com writes:
I recently posted this addendum to the Arrow's Theorem page on
wikipedia: It was immediately deleted for bias.
[...]
Was I out in left field for writing this? I was under the impression
that many vote theorists agreed with this
Curt Siffert siffert at museworld.com writes:
I recently posted this addendum to the Arrow's Theorem page on
wikipedia: It was immediately deleted for bias.
The theorem is criticized by many vote theorists, however, for
depending on flawed requirements. [...] It is the final (IIAC)
Q wrote
Just a thought, but stating many vote theorists without providing
supporting links to referreed articles might have led to the
bias decision.
I'm not saying that your argument is like those supporting Intelligent
Design or denying Global Warming, but perhaps as a result of the
Paul Kislanko wrote:
I would go a little farther. Since Arrow's was a PROOF in which no one has
found a flaw in over 50 years, I would say that anyone who has found fault
with it is not a vote theorist.
But Arrow didn't prove that IIA compliance was necessary, or even
desirable (although the
Bart Ingles wrote in respone to
Paul Kislanko wrote:
I would go a little farther. Since Arrow's was a PROOF in
which no one has
found a flaw in over 50 years, I would say that anyone who
has found fault
with it is not a vote theorist.
But Arrow didn't prove that IIA compliance
Paul Kislanko wrote:
We weren't talking about that. We were discussing election theorists found
Arrow's proof flawed.
The term flawed is ambiguous, and could mean something other than
invalid. Although I can imagine that the Wikipeople might have taken
it that way.
Election-methods
