[EM] Acronyms need to spelled out

[Jim & Mary Ronback]

It would be useful for newcomers to have the acronyms spelled out the 
first time they are used in each e-mail, e.g. , SFC, GSFC, SDSC, WDSC, 
FBC, CW, ERIRV, AERLO,  etc., or point to reference where they are defined.

Thanks,

Jim Ronback

Russ Paielli wrote:

> ............
> In any case, I must admit that I was naive when I started the website 
> with Mike. I had assumed that his criteria were more or less widely 
> accepted by the EM community, but only later did I realize that they 
> may be a "Mike-only" sort of deal. Perhaps someone here can help me 
> understand the situation. Are Mike's criteria such as SFC, GSFC, SDSC, 
> WDSC, and FBC "widely" recognized, or do they live only in Mike's mind?
>
> Finally, a little "friendly" advice to Mike. He probably won't take 
> it, but the loss will only be his. I suggest that he formally document 
> his criteria in one or more technical papers and submit them to 
> peer-reviewed journals or conferences. I don't even know which 
> journals or conferences would be appropriate, but there must be some. 
> Perhaps someone can suggest some.
>
> By the way, conference papers are easier to get accepted than journal 
> papers, but they require travel. Then again, if Mike is really serious 
> (and he certainly seems to think he is), he should eventually meet 
> some of his colleagues in person. You can't build a "career" on an 
> email list.
>
> --Russ
>
> MIKE OSSIPOFF nkklrp-at-hotmail.com |EMlist| wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> I forgot to include all the wording that I intended for the 
>> equilibrium criteria:
>>
>> And a different naming might be good too.
>>
>> Falsifyingness:
>>
>> A method is falsifying if, with that method, there are situations 
>> (configurations of candidates and voter preferences) in which there 
>> is a CW, and there are no Nash equilibria in which the CW wins and no 
>> one reverses a preference.
>>
>> [end of falsifyingness definition]
>>
>> Expressiveness:
>>
>> A method is expressive if, with that method, every situation with a 
>> CW has at least one Nash equilibrium in which the CW wins and no one 
>> votes a less-liked candidate equal to or over a more-liked candidate 
>> (as I define that).
>>
>> [end of expressiveness definition]
>>
>> Also, instead of the name that I suggested for the criterion relating 
>> to James´ co-operation/defection dilemma, let me instead just say 
>> that methods that have that dilemma are "defection-vulnerable" or 
>> "defection-prone".
>>
>> So I´ve defined falsifyingness, expressiveness, and defection-proneness.
>>
>> Of course any method that is expressive is nonfalsifying.
>>
>> When a method is said to be falsifying, non-falsifying, expressive, 
>> or non-expressive, that term should be followed by "a", "s1", or 
>> "s2", depending on which voting extension of Nash equilibrium is 
>> being referred to. If those terms are used without that designation, 
>> then "a" is the default assumption. The "a" versions of 
>> nonfalsifyingness or expressiveness are the most demanding versions.
>>
>> I defined "a", "s1", & "s2" in a posting yesterday.
>>
>> But I´d like to replace "a" with "ac", so that it won´t need the 
>> quotation marks to disinguish it from the word "a".
>>
>> I haven´t examined many methods for these properties, but Approval is 
>> nonfalsifying, so are the wv Condorcet versions. And 
>> BeatpathWinner/CSSD and RP are probably expressive. Maybe also 
>> Bucklin, and ERIRV and Kevin´s Approval elimination when they have 
>> AERLO.
>>
>> Pluralitly, IRV, and Condorcet(margins) are falsifying, in all of 
>> that term´s versions ("a", "s1", & "s2").
>>
>> I expect that methods that meet WDSC are nonfalsifying, and that 
>> methods that meet SDSC are expressive, but I´m not sure whether those 
>> properties always coincide.
>>
>> Mike Ossipoff
>>
>>
>