[EM] IRV vs Plurality (back to the pile count controversy)
robert bristow-johnson
rbj at audioimagination.com
Thu Jan 21 15:35:33 PST 2010
On Jan 21, 2010, at 6:30 PM, James Gilmour wrote:
> robert bristow-johnson > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 6:49 AM
>> but breaking it down to piles regarding every conceivable permutation
>> of candidate preference is *still* breaking it down to a finite
>> number of piles. for 3 candidates, that number is 9. if you or
>> Kathy say it's 15, then you're wrong (and it's your slip that's
>> showing). for 4 candidates the number of necessary piles is
>> 40.
>> for N candidates, the number of piles necessary, P(N) is
>>
>> N-1
>> P(N) = SUM{ N!/n! }
>> n=1
>>
>> not
>>
>> N-1
>> P(N) = SUM{ N!/n! }
>> n=0
>
> I do not intend to comment on your formula, but I calculate the
> numbers of possible unique preference profiles for increasing
> numbers of candidates (N) as follows:
>
> N Unique Preference Profiles
> 2 4
> 3 15
...
then your calculation is mistaken. the fact that you ostensibly need
4 piles when there are only two candidates should serve as a clue.
--
r b-j rbj at audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
More information about the Election-Methods
mailing list