[EM] Ranked Pairs Description

[Eric Gorr]

At 6:09 AM +0000 12/27/03, MIKE OSSIPOFF wrote:
>Of course wording that covers that should be included. Maybe it 
>could be said in a way that covers all those possibilities in one 
>wording, without separate mention of the special case where 2 or 
>more tied-defeats indivicuallly don't cycle with old-kept-defeats, 
>but do so if boith are kept.

Personally, I think I did cover this in #5. The case of multiple 
tied-defeats is covered by:

   If two or more defeats are equivalent, those defeats are considered
   together with previously kept defeats, if any.

(#4 covered what is considered to be equivalent)

Now, in light of your comments, I think my statement:

   If any defeat under consideration is apart of a cycle, it is rejected.

Could be improved by changing it to:

   If any defeat under consideration, which has not yet been kept, is apart
   of a cycle, it is rejected.

Similarly,

   If any defeat under consideration, which has not yet been kept, is not apart
   of a cycle, it is kept.

I will probably also turn the word 'cycle' into a link with a more 
detailed description.