Talk:Probability

Also overly-broad article — Psephomancy (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You can delete it. I'll move the info to other articles. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Psephomancy, would it be okay to have a big "List of theoretical fields with connections to voting theory" type of article, with each of these deleted articles showing up as subsections in that article? BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure. What is the point of doing it that way instead of just linking to concepts from the articles in which they appear? — Psephomancy (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it may be helpful to have a broad idea of how all these concepts intersect in the usual categorization of the concepts. For example, the part of this article that talks about how some voting method criteria and voting theory discussions work in a deterministic framework (win/not win) and others in a probabilistic framework seems like a point worth documenting somewhere. Another example is computer science; it may genuinely be useful or of interest to document connections between voting and computation, such as how Kemeny-Young's winner can be found by solving a certain kind of optimization problem.


 * To some extent, I'm suggesting all of this because personally, voting theory has been a great springboard in my ability/motivation to learn from other fields, and I'd like to pass that on and/or allow others to document anything they find relevant. If managed properly, I think such an article could serve to allow those familiar with other fields to conceptualize voting theory much faster. I'm happy to compromise/do some work that you require me to do if it'd make this possible. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I think a solution you might be okay with is to create an "Overlap with other fields" section in the Voting theory article. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

it may genuinely be useful or of interest to document connections between voting and computation, such as how Kemeny-Young's winner can be found by solving a certain kind of optimization problem.


 * Yes, that is of interest, so what's wrong with discussing it in the Kemeny-Young article, with links to the topics that are mentioned?

''to create an "Overlap with other fields" section in the Voting theory article. ''


 * That's fine, I guess? — Psephomancy (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the statistics article could be a viable place to add this article in as a subsection. But basically, I just want to be able to document the information that sometimes, when evaluating who should win in voting methods, you need to think in terms of probabilities rather than determinism. Maybe it makes sense as a sentence in the voting methods article, if you prefer that. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)