[EM] Acronyms need to spelled out

[Paul Kislanko]

 I have suggested this enough times that I think we should just abbreviate
it to 

IWBUFNTHHTASOTFTTAUIEE.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com 
> [mailto:election-methods-electorama.com-bounces at electorama.com
> ] On Behalf Of Jim & Mary Ronback
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 4:12 PM
> To: election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: [EM] Acronyms need to spelled out
> 
> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em 
> for list info
>