Talk:Maximal elements algorithms: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>MarkusSchulze mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 11:
[[User:MarkusSchulze|Markus Schulze]] 04:44, 27 October 2006 (PDT)
Isn't the Beats and Beats-or-ties relation for Smith and Schwartz the wrong way around? The maximal element for Beat is the set whose members beat everybody outside of it -- that's Smith. And the maximal element of Beat-or-tie is the set whose members beat or tie everybody outside of it -- that's Schwartz, if I'm not mistaken. Because Beat-or-tie is more lenient than Beat, the set can be smaller (can exclude more candidates)... and the Schwartz set is a subset of the Smith set.
[[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 23:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
: I don't know for sure, but let me point out that Smith is associated with the beat-or-tie path, and Schwartz with the beatpath. Taking the Wikipedia example of 3 candidates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwartz_set#Smith_set_comparison), with A>B, B>C, A=C, we can see that the only candidate with a beatpath to all others is A (A>B>C), since B doesn't beat anyone who beats A, and C beats nobody. But a beat-or-tie path can be constructed from any of the 3 candidates to the others, since they all beat or tie someone who beats or ties someone else. This lines up with A being the only member of the Schwartz set and all 3 being in the Smith set. Since this page mentions "The Schwartz set is associated with the beatpath order" and "The Smith set is associated with the beat-or-tie order", I'm guessing this explains it. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 20:00, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
| |||