"This table has no contradictions," This is only valid if you assert that B = C AND B > D BUT C !> D is not a contradiction. If you think B and C are equally strong, how can you believe that only one of them is better than D? -Caleb --- Andrew Plotkin <erkyrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007, Timothy Hunt wrote: > > > I can't think of any legitimate, deliberate, way of expressing one's > > preference in the table that one can't express in a ranked list with > > the ability to provide for "is equal to" > > ` A B C D E > A ` + + + + > B - ` + + > C - ` + > D - - ` + > E - - - - ` > > This table has no contradictions, and it's transitively complete -- you > can't deduce any more entries from those. But you can't express it as a > list. > > It's *not* the list "A, BCD, E"; that would be the (different) table > > ` A B C D E > A ` + + + + > B - ` + > C - ` + > D - ` + > E - - - - ` > > and misses the fact that I prefer B to D. > > Nor is it the list "A, B, C, D, E"; that says that I prefer B to C, and C > to D, which I don't. > > You could express my table validly as a *set* of ballots. But you have to > be careful not to double-vote on any particular pair; that would throw off > the outcome. > > You could express it as the not-a-list > > C, > - A, E - > B,D, > > I'm pretty sure you don't want people to mail you ballots that look like > that. :) > > --Z > > -- > "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the > borogoves..." > * > If the Bush administration hasn't subjected you to searches without a > warrant, it's for one reason: they don't feel like it. Not because of > the Fourth Amendment. > _______________________________________________ > Icehouse mailing list > Icehouse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658