Exaggerated opinions

[David Marsay]

Dear Markus,
 
> you wrote (29 Apr 1998):
> > I like what I call the 'maxpath' method for Dodgson.
>> <SNIP>.
> 
> I like that method. As far as I remember correctly, I have proposed a
> similar method on 10 Okt 1997.

We were both beaten to it - or something very like it - by Tideman, I 
think.

>If you meant that method, when you talked
> about the "Dodgson method", then I have to agree with your opinion.
> 
> Is it possible, that Condorcet=Dodgson in the UK?

I can only speak for myself. There seem to be very many 
interpretations of Condorcet. I believe that Dodgson is as least as 
good a candidate as any. From memory, I think I have an article that 
I interpreted as showing that Dodgson = Kemeney, and another 
showing that Kemeney = an interpretation of Condorcet. I am not sure 
of the nationality of the authors!

I think that some variation of Condorcet is the 'natural' method for 
ranking, with complexity being its only real draw-back. I acknowledge 
that there are some seemingly desirable properties that it does not 
have, but believe that there are slight relaxations that it does 
have, and that on the whole these supposedly desirable properties are 
inconsistent with what I regard to be more important desirable 
properties.

Unfortunately, as soon as I try to prove the above I get bogged down 
in logic spaghetti. I am aiming for at least a sketch of a proof that 
one might be able to find people to review!

Thanks for your interest.
--------------------------------------------------
Sorry folks, but apparently I have to do this. :-(
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer
and do not represent the views, policy or understanding of
any other person or official body.