Sequential dropping: Difference between revisions

Content added Content deleted

Inline

Revision as of 21:57, 14 June 2005 (view source) imported>James Green-Armytage (create)		Revision as of 19:43, 17 June 2005 (view source) imported>KVenzke m (cat) Newer edit →
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]]