[EM] Alex Small SFBC paper draft

[Warren Smith]

On 8/23/10, Warren Smith <warren.wds at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Alex Small
>
> your FBC manuscript looks interesting.  The typesetting is sometimes
> annoying (use of * for multiply).
>
> Kevin Venzke is quite right he invented MDDA not me.
> Ossipoff has 2 Fs.  Warren D. Smith has a "D."
>
> Your paper is long.  It needs to be written to be more accessible.
> Think how to provide fast-access routes for the reader who wants to
> know certain things (make a list of what things various typical readers
> might want to know, and find a way to make them be able to find it fast).
>
> Like put a table of contents, table of FBC-complaint methods, index,
> I dunno.   It is not easy for a newbie to quickly assimilate what's
> important in your paper.
>
> See also the end of http://rangevoting.org/FBCsurvey.html
> where the Smith-Simmons theorem is mentioned, see
> http://rangevoting.org/SimmonsSmithPf.html
>
> somehow I feel this theorem has heavy importance and you ought to
> discuss it to some degree.
>
> Among your SFBC compliant methods, you might want to compare.  Which
> should we like and why.
>
> But I haven't really read the thing yet :)
>
>
> --
> Warren D. Smith
> http://RangeVoting.org  <-- add your endorsement (by clicking
> "endorse" as 1st step)
> and
> math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/works.html

4. Linearity: The conditions for a candidate to win can be expressed
by a series simple inequalities that are linear in the tallies of the
ballot types.

--that was bogus english grammar.   Do you mean "boolean combination
(via AND, OR, NOT) of linear inequalities"??  Note the result would be
nonlinear

anyway, since I don't know what you meant on key axiom, this paper is
currently dead right there.

And quit with the * for multiply.

5. "Generic decisiveness" might be better name.   E.g. with random
real numbers as the vote counts, prob=1 get a unique winner.  Or full
measure, if like measures not probs.

Based on the geometric properties of the boundaries, we will clas-
sify SFBC-compliant election methods into 4 distinct categories.

OK, how about right here:
I. ...
II. ...
III. ...
IV. ...

Because your bleeping discussion right here now, is super annoying.

etc.
ditions are expressed as sets of linear inequalities, we get: IF	(p,u11)>0

seems like a major typo here.


Elec- tion methods can generally be specified as procedure defined by a series
10
of if-then-else statements regarding the numbers of voters submitting
different ballot types.

--well, that was vague.  If you had a precise axiom back there (like
my boolean AND suggestion above) you could
here make a precise claim.  As it is, you are just asserting something
with no proof
which I see no reason to buy, nor is it even clear exactly what is meant.

We will refer to a set of conditions related by symmetry operations as
a ”stage” of an election method.
Definition 3 Given...

--that also was vague.  This is not  living up to the precision+clarity
it takes to write a math paper "definition."

...hum.  Well, looking further, I'm not happy about the writing as it
stands now.
I think it has a long way to go to make the writing get good, tight,
clear, precise.
Try to make your theorems & defns standalone readable, or if not, at least with
backpointers to the stuff needed to comprehend it.
As for the correctness and importance of your results, I
currently have no opinion since I still don't know what they are.