Talk:Probability: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (Respond to User:BetterVotingAdvocacy) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 6:
: I'm not really sure. What is the point of doing it that way instead of just linking to concepts from the articles in which they appear? — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 05:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
:: I think it may be helpful to have a broad idea of how all these concepts intersect in the usual categorization of the concepts. For example, the part of this article that talks about how some voting method criteria and voting theory discussions work in a deterministic framework (win/not win) and others in a probabilistic framework seems like a point worth documenting somewhere. Another example is computer science; it may genuinely be useful or of interest to document connections between voting and computation, such as how Kemeny-Young's winner can be found by solving a certain kind of optimization problem.
:: To some extent, I'm suggesting all of this because personally, voting theory has been a great springboard in my ability/motivation to learn from other fields, and I'd like to pass that on and/or allow others to document anything they find relevant. If managed properly, I think such an article could serve to allow those familiar with other fields to conceptualize voting theory much faster. I'm happy to compromise/do some work that you require me to do if it'd make this possible. [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 06:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
| |||