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

[Anders Kaseorg]

On 12/08/2013 10:11 PM, Michael Ossipoff wrote:
> 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?

Yes, that’s the difference.

Since you named MMV, the choice of definition is up to you.  We just 
wouldn’t want the definition to have two interpretations under which it 
might be argued that the same election had two different results (A = B 
 > C > D or A > B > C > D).

> 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?

I’ve now done some more investigation and found that resolvability 
failures still exist with or without the fix.  For example,

Ballots:
1: A > D > C > B
1: A > C > D > B
1: D > C > B > A
1: B > A > C > D
1: C > D > B > A
Defeats:
4-1: C > B, D > B
3-2: A > C, A > D, B > A, C > D
Result: C = D > B

but there’s no extra vote that would break the tie in favor of D.  So 
perhaps the fix is not as helpful as I thought.

Anders