4,193
edits
Talk:Smith criterion: Difference between revisions
→Smith efficient: should we have a "Smith efficient" redirect to this article (p.s. I gave the prior discussion a "2020-02-22" section header)
mNo edit summary |
(→Smith efficient: should we have a "Smith efficient" redirect to this article (p.s. I gave the prior discussion a "2020-02-22" section header)) |
||
Line 1:
== 2020-02-22 ==
Do all Smith-efficient methods produce Smith set rankings of the candidates for their orders of finish? [[User:BetterVotingAdvocacy|BetterVotingAdvocacy]] ([[User talk:BetterVotingAdvocacy|talk]]) 16:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Line 4 ⟶ 5:
: In general, for questions like "does X imply Y?", a good first strategy is to try to be a maximally malicious genie and try to find an example where X does not imply Y. You only need one counterexample to show that X doesn't imply Y. Proving that something is the case is often much harder than proving that it isn't. [[User:Kristomun|Kristomun]] ([[User talk:Kristomun|talk]]) 20:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
== Smith efficient ==
Is "Smith efficient" the term of art that y'all use when you're talking about methods in academic settings? It seems like we should at least have a [[Smith efficient]] redirect point to this article, since that seems like an efficient way of referring to this criterion (so to speak). -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 17:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
| |||