[EM] "Approval" name out; VM17 Schulze theory fails; 80k Sincere Votes equals 80k Voters?

[Kevin Venzke]

Craig,

 --- Craig Carey <research at ijs.co.nz> a écrit : 
> (3) MR VENKZE MAKES CLAIMS ABOUT THE SCHULZE METHOD
> 
> The main idea here is that a novel way to get answers out of believers in
> Condorcet variants, is to ask the wrong people.

I guess you mean this in a complimentary way?

> The Venkze version of the Schulze method MUST BE rejected since failing
> a rule that is a strengthened Monotonicity (i.e. Woodall's
> Mono-Raise-Random rule).

We are short on rules satisfying Mono-raise-random...

> Unexpectedly a breakthrough occurred when I got these lines ("For
> 3-candidate Schulze ...") from Mr K Venkze (who is in Minnesota, USA).
> 
> To: Mr Venkze
> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:32:49 +1300
> | At 2005-01-19 08:06 +0100 Wednesday, Kevin Venzke wrote:
> ...
> | >For 3-candidate Schulze (or Tideman, Heitzig, or Minmax, since
> | >all are the same with three candidates), I believe this is
> | >correct:
> | >
> | >A-wins :=
> | >((a+ca)>(b+cb) and (a+ba)>(c+bc)) or
> | >((a+ca)>(b+cb) and (b+ab)>(c+ac) and (c+bc)>(a+ba) and
> | > · · · · · · · · · (c+bc)<(a+ca) and (c+bc)<(b+ab)) or
> | >((a+ba)>(c+bc) and (c+ac)>(b+ab) and (b+cb)>(a+ca) and
> | > · · · · · · · · · (b+cb)<(a+ba) and (b+cb)<(c+ac));
> | >

> Also, Mr Venkze probably IGNORED the whole PDF article of Mr Schulze since
> his "A-wins" expression had only 5 lines. Here is my argument:
> 
> · ·The 3 "for loops" of the Schulze thing would lead to an expression that
> · ·would be nearer 90 lines long.
> 
> · ·That polytope expression should simplify greatly, since it has to simplify
> · ·into the "ha2" expression (unless ha2 is wrong).

I agree with you.

> Also, to be logical, Mr Schulze's monotonicity proof must be discarded
> because it was not checking the surfaces between the cases, that are
> created by the indices and subscripts.
> 
> Here is an example showing a fault line:
> 
> A-wins· · · /
> · · · ·P· ·/
> · · · /|· /
> · · ·/ | /
> · · / ·|/ · A-loses
> · ·/· ·Q
> 
> Between P and Q there is an infinitesimally boundary between 2 of Mr Schulze's
> cases. It must be checked before it can be concldued that the slopes are
> within the bounds.

Diagrams are created by following the rules of the method. If you prove
e.g. that raising a candidate can't make him lose, according to the rules
of the method, then you also prove that this can't occur on the diagram
which is supposed to be based on the method.

> A better looking fairer Condorcet method than the Schulze method, might be
> Mr Venkze's MMPO (1-winner) Condorcet variant, since seeming to not fail
> Monotonicity-2 when 3 candidates.

Hmm, that's interesting. I wonder what circumstances you checked?

Suppose A wins and his score is from opposition from C. Suppose C is close,
and gets max opposition from B. Then changing the ballot BA to AC might
have no effect but to decrease C's score (which is good for C).

So I think it can't be right, that 3-candidate MMPO satisfies Mono-2.

Kevin Venzke



	

	
		
Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail : 250 Mo d'espace de stockage pour vos mails ! 
Créez votre Yahoo! Mail sur http://fr.mail.yahoo.com/