All involve randomness (was RE: [EM] river, ROACC (terminolgy, again))
kislanko at airmail.net
Sat Aug 28 21:23:49 PDT 2004
Steve Eppley wrote:
Paul K wrote:
> Steve Eppley wrote:
>> Aren't all the voting methods we've been promoting
>> both anonymous and neutral? Doesn't that mean
>> none of them are entirely non-random?
> If "none of them are non-random" then all of them are random.
> That's definitely not true. And the there is no connection
> between "anonymous" and "neutral" (whatever that means).
Anonymity means each voter is treated alike. Neutrality means each
candidate is treated alike
Just to set the record straight - all "Paul K" meant was that the statement
"none are non-random" is the same the as the statement "all are random."
That is not an opinion, or something subject to refutation by counterexample
- it is a provable theorem from the axioms of logic.
I don't give a hoot about formal definitions of "anonymity" and "neutrality"
since those were not what I was talking about (but thanks for clarifying
that they were being used in a standard way). I objected to the statement
that all of the methods discussed on this list are "random."
As to my original point, I objected to the use of the term
"non-deterministic" as a synonym for a method that has a random component.
Many of the methods ARE non-deterministic, but not "random."
As was pointed out earlier, the proper term for an algorithm that requires a
random input is "stochastic", not "not-deterministic".
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Election-Methods