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

[Michael Ossipoff]

 You said:

[quote]
immediately discard any defeats that would complete a cycle with strictly
stronger affirmed defeats, so that they are not considered for use in
cycles with equally strong defeats.
[/quote]

Ok, you mean, when some equal defeats would otherwise all get
simultaneously discarded because they cycle with eachother and some
stronmger defeats, we should give first priority to first discarding
any of those equal defeats that are the only defeat of that strength
that is in some other particular cycle with defeats all of which are
stronger?

Sure, that sounds like it makes sense, and maybe it would be an improvement.

Does MMT as I define it fail Resolvability, and woud your fix make it
pass Resolvability?

Ok, but it would lengthen the definition, so it would be necessary to
show why Resolvability is worth the longer definition.

Michael Ossipoff














On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Anders Kaseorg <andersk at mit.edu> wrote:
> On 12/08/2013 06:42 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
>>
>> 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]
>
>
> This still doesn’t fix the problem I pointed out yesterday[1].  Are you
> intending to fix it, or have you decided to fail resolvability in favor of
> making the definition shorter?
>
> Anders
>
> [1]
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2013-December/032423.html
>