[EM] Markus, re: Random Candidate & IIAC
nkklrp at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 15 17:39:42 PST 2002
>I'm not agreeing yet that RC passes IIAC, because I haven't
>rechecked and printed-out the definition yet, but maybe it
When Mike cannot see that under "Random Candidate" the
probability that a given candidate X is elected can only
decrease when additional candidates are nominated, then
I cannot help him.
Take a look at my paragraph that you quoted above. It was
right in front of your face. I'd said I wasn't agreeing with you
_because I hadn't rechecked & printed-out your definition._
Whether the probability that a given candidate X is elected can
only decrease when additional candidates are nominated doesn't
mean anything with respect to compliance with your definition unless
that's what your definition is about. Since, as I said, I hadn't
printed your definition out, and didn't have it available at that
time, I couldn't say whether or not RC complies with your criterion.
It might seem pointless to say that I don't necessarily agree, because
I don't have your definition handy, but I said it to avoid any
unintened implication that I was agreeing with something that I
don't know the accuracy of.
Next time, read what you're replying to before you reply.
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
More information about the Election-Methods