Talk:Techniques of method design: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
imported>KVenzke No edit summary |
imported>KVenzke No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hi. I made additions regarding pairwise opposition as an alternative approach to defeat strength; majority-strength defeats; and also the definition of the CDTT. -Kevin Venzke |
Hi. I made additions regarding pairwise opposition as an alternative approach to defeat strength; majority-strength defeats; and also the definition of the CDTT. -Kevin Venzke |
||
Why is "union of minimal undominated sets" offered as a name for Schwartz? When "undominated set" means "no candidate in the set has more than half the votes against them in any contest with a candidate outside the set," then this is actually the definition of the CDTT. |
Why is "union of minimal undominated sets" offered as a name for Schwartz? When "undominated set" means "no candidate in the set has more than half the votes against them in any contest with a candidate outside the set," then this is actually the definition of the CDTT. (Woodall uses "dominate" for majority-strength wins.) |
||
I've never heard Schwartz defined as the union of sets. -Kevin Venzke |
I've never heard Schwartz defined as the union of sets. Is it useful to do so? -Kevin Venzke |
||
Revision as of 21:52, 4 April 2005
Hi. I made additions regarding pairwise opposition as an alternative approach to defeat strength; majority-strength defeats; and also the definition of the CDTT. -Kevin Venzke
Why is "union of minimal undominated sets" offered as a name for Schwartz? When "undominated set" means "no candidate in the set has more than half the votes against them in any contest with a candidate outside the set," then this is actually the definition of the CDTT. (Woodall uses "dominate" for majority-strength wins.)
I've never heard Schwartz defined as the union of sets. Is it useful to do so? -Kevin Venzke