| Display title | Talk:Beatpath |
| Default sort key | Beatpath |
| Page length (in bytes) | 540 |
| Namespace ID | 1 |
| Namespace | Talk |
| Page ID | 1944 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Delete | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Page creator | BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 05:58, 18 March 2020 |
| Latest editor | BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 06:01, 18 March 2020 |
| Total number of edits | 2 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 180 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | It seems to me that the Smith set can be defined simply as the smallest group of candidates such that they have a beatpath to all other candidates, but no other candidates have a beatpath back to them? Why is the beat-or-tie path concept necessary? Edit: Figured it out, if A beats B beats C, with C tying A, then A has a beatpath to C, but C doesn't have a beatpath back, yet C is still in the Smith set. BetterVotingAdvocacy (talk) 05:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC) |
