[EM] Fw: IBCM, Tideman, Schulze

[Markus Schulze]

Dear Mike,

you wrote (23 July 2000):
> Markus wrote (23 July 2000):
> > Mike wrote (23 July 2000):
> > > That SSD definition has a natural & obvious motivation
> > > & justification that Schulze doesn't have. Both your
> > > definitions use beatpaths.
> >
> > But the SSD definition uses Schwartz sets. And the
> > definition of Schwartz sets uses beat paths.
>
> The Schwartz set can be defined in terms of innermost
> unbeaten sets. The Schwartz set is the set of candidates
> who are in innermost unbeaten sets. But my SSD definition
> yesterday avoided mentioning the Schwartz set, and only
> spoke of innermost unbeaten sets.

But as far as I have understood the definition of "innermost
unbeaten sets" properly, then "innermost unbeaten set" is
only a different word for "Schwartz set."

If I haven't understood the definition of "innermost unbeaten
sets" properly, then I want to ask you to define "innermost
unbeaten sets" without using Schwartz sets or beat paths.

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