Talk:Uncovered set
Does it make any difference if i pairwise beats j? I seem to be missing something... --James Green-Armytage 03:39, 25 Jun 2005 (PDT)
I removed the following: ", while the Banks set requires a beatpath of at most all candidates.[1] ", as that statement would imply that everybody in the Smith set (one-step beatpath) is in the Banks set (at most (c-1)-step beatpath).
The Banks set is instead more sophisticated. For X to win in a sequential elimination rule, there must exist at least one beatpath of some length originating in X that isn't the suffix of any longer beatpath starting in Y.
That the beatpath originates in X means that X can become champion in a sequential elimination rule. That this beatpath is not the suffix (the end) of some beatpath originating in Y means that Y can't take the win from X by rearranging the order of the remaining candidates, once X has become champion. Kristomun (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- ↑ Nurmi, Hannu (1999). Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. p. 106. ISBN 3-662-03782-3. OCLC 851380375.