[EM] I think Bishop's deconstruction algorithm fails
Paul Kislanko
kislanko at airmail.net
Sun Nov 27 17:45:34 PST 2005
Mr Smith obviously doesn't understand English any more than he does math.
Mis-quoting me and mis-charactizing my arguments is proof of that.
What I said, in plain English, is that since there are multiple
decompositions of a pairwise matrix that would lead to the same pairwise
matrix, it would be more logical to begin vote-counting from ballots instead
of from the pairwise matrix.
I don't expect him to understand, but let us not allow his
mis-understandings to characterize my post.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Smith [mailto:wds at math.temple.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 7:26 PM
> To: wds at math.temple.edu; kislanko at airmail.net;
> election-methods at electorama.com
> Subject: Re: [EM] I think Bishop's deconstruction algorithm fails
>
>
> no, I meant Bishop's alg would fail to fid ANY deconstruction
> even when one
> existed. The problem was not, as Kislanko worries, that
> there might be
> a non-unique solution. That is a valid worry, but I do not
> care about that
> worry.
>
> Also, to reply some more to Kislanko, he argued that "a
> condorcet matrix"
> is one arising from ballots, therefore he fails to understand how
> a matirx could exist which does not arise from ballots.
>
> Well, one reply to that is "duh." Another reply is, there
> are matrices
> which do not arise from ballots. It is an interesting question which
> matrices are achievable and which are not.
>
> Bishop's algoorithm if it works (which I doubt) would answer
> that question.
> I have a method involving solving an integer program which
> does answer the
> question, but only at heavy computational cost. Bishop's method
> if it works would have mild computational cost.
> My method works and I doubt Bishop's works, but it would be nice
> to produce an explicit counterexample to Bishop's algorithm.
> wds
>
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list