[EM] Fwd: Two MMV definiions (brief, and ordered-procedure)

[Michael Ossipoff]

 When I posted this message a few mintutes ago, I accidentally left
the word "kept" out of my definition.

Briefly, where I said "stronger defeats", I meant "kept stronger defeats".

Here is that posting, with its definitions, with that correction:




.
Here is how I'd suggest defining MMV:

A defeat contradicts a set of other defeats if it is in a cycle that
consists only of it and them.

Brief definition:

Keep every defeat that doesn't contradict a set of kept stronger defeats,
or a set consisting of defeats equal to it, and kept defeats stronger than
it.
[end of brief MMV definition]

Ordered-Procedure MMV definition:

In order of stronger first, consider the defeats one at time, as follows:
Keep the considerred defeat if it doesn't contradict a set of stronger
kept defeats, or a set consisting of defeats equal to it, and kept defeats
stronger than it is.

[end of ordered-procedure MMV definition]

It isn't desirable to reject a set of equal defeats merely because
they form a cycle with eachother, because that can cause the problem
of a weak defeat being kept, when stronger oes are rejected, for no
reason other than that that defeat is weaker.

I like Steve Eppley's MAM, when mid-count randomization is available
and acceptable.

When mid-count randomization isn't available and acceptable, and a
tied-outcome is acceptable, then I prefe MMV, as defined above in this
post.

Of course, when there's a tied outcome, and it is desired to choose
one winniing alternative, then the tied outcome should be solved by
Random-Ballot

Michael Ossipoff