Sequential dropping: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>James Green-Armytage (create) |
imported>KVenzke m (cat) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Differs from minmax only in the "that's in a cycle" proviso. As a result of that proviso, sequential dropping is Smith-efficient. Unlike [[beatpath]], [[ranked pairs]], and [[river]], sequential dropping fails monotonicity and clone independence. |
Differs from minmax only in the "that's in a cycle" proviso. As a result of that proviso, sequential dropping is Smith-efficient. Unlike [[beatpath]], [[ranked pairs]], and [[river]], sequential dropping fails monotonicity and clone independence. |
||
[[Category:Condorcet method]] |
|||
Revision as of 19:43, 17 June 2005
Drop the weakest pairwise defeat that's in a cycle until a candidate is unbeaten.
Differs from minmax only in the "that's in a cycle" proviso. As a result of that proviso, sequential dropping is Smith-efficient. Unlike beatpath, ranked pairs, and river, sequential dropping fails monotonicity and clone independence.