Revision as of 21:06, 14 October 2021 (view source) Kristomun (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 05:43, 18 October 2021 (view source) Marcosb (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 149: ::: Let's say that the voter's ballot is A>B before and A>B>C after. If A or B won before and now C wins, that's LNHarm failure. If C won before but A or B wins after, that's LNHelp failure. You could try to devise a crafty mathematical proof, but with simple criteria like these, brute force is easier. [[User:Kristomun\|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun\|talk]]) 21:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Thanks! I think it'd be really nice to get a mathematical proof just because I don't have a lot of faith in simulations. I thought about this a bit more & I think the key is my original proof - I think it DID prove that the method satisfies later-no-harm & condorcet, but what I was missing was later-no-help. I updated the proofs, can you take a look to see if they make sense? --[[User:Marcosb\|Marcosb]] ([[User talk:Marcosb\|talk]]) 05:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC) == Arrow/IIA ==

Talk:IRV Prime (view source)