[EM] Fw: IBCM, Tideman, Schulze

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (28 June 2000):
> Markus wrote (28 June 2000):
> > Suppose that candidate D is substituted with a set of clones
> > with D1 > D2 > D3 > D1. Suppose that all the pairwise defeats
> > between two clones are larger than 65:35. Then the SD winner of
> > my yesterday's example is changed from candidate D to candidate C.
> > Therefore SD violates independence from clones.
>
> Sure, but isn't every clone example an example with some identical
> entries in the pairwise defeat table?

The fact that SD violates independence from clones has nothing to do
with the fact that you propose that when there are pairwise defeats
with the same strength then these pairwise defeats should be dropped
simultaneously. Even if these pairwise defeats with the same strength
are considered successively one after the other in an arbitrary order
the winner is changed from candidate D to candidate C.

Markus Schulze
schulze at sol.physik.tu-berlin.de
schulze at math.tu-berlin.de
markusschulze at planet-interkom.de