Talk:Schulze method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] Three questions
Hello, I want to translate this article in french and I have three questions
[edit] About path heuristic
This condition
-
- For i = 1,...,(n-1): d[C(i),C(i+1)] > d[C(i+1),C(i)].
seems very strong . What happens if d[C,Y] ≤ d[Y,C] for every candidate C. Is there no path from X to Y ?
- The definition says:
-
- A path from candidate X to candidate Y of strength z is an ordered set of candidates C(1),...,C(n) with the following four properties:
-
-
-
- C(1) is identical to X.
- C(n) is identical to Y.
- For i = 1,...,(n-1): d[C(i),C(i+1)] > d[C(i+1),C(i)].
- For i = 1,...,(n-1): d[C(i),C(i+1)] ≥ z.
-
-
-
- If there is a p such that there is a path from candidate A to candidate B of strength p and no path from candidate B to candidate A of strength p, then candidate A disqualifies candidate B.
- Therefore, if there is a path from candidate A to candidate B and no path from candidate B to candidate A, then candidate A disqualifies candidate B. Markus Schulze 14:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
What about p[X,Y] ?
- If there is no path from candidate A to candidate B, then p[A,B] : = 0. Markus Schulze 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] About Schwartz heuristic
I don't know how to respect the rules in this example (10 voters; 5 candidates):
- 3 ABCED
- 4 DECBA
- 1 BADCE
- 1 CBAED
- 1 EADCB
| d[*,A] | d[*,B] | d[*,C] | d[*,D] | d[*,E] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| d[A,*] | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 | |
| d[B,*] | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | |
| d[C,*] | 5 | 6 | 4 | 5 | |
| d[D,*] | 4 | 5 | 6 | 5 | |
| d[E,*] | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
Here, the Schwartz set is ABCDE (yes ?), there are some defeats (yes ?), and I dont know what is the weakest defeat
- Yes, the Schwartz set is ABCDE. The weakest defeats are A:D, B:A, C:B, and D:C each with a strength of 6:4 votes. If the weakest defeat is not unique, then all defeats that are tied for weakest defeat are dropped simultaneously. Therefore, the defeats A:D, B:A, C:B, and D:C are dropped simultaneously. Now, all candidates are tied with each other; thus, all candidates are tied for winner. Markus Schulze 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Or, easier, what is the weakest defeat in the example 1 (path heuristic)? Wich candidate must be eliminated ?
- In example 1 (path heuristic), the weakest defeat is E:A = 23:22. Markus Schulze 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name
The two heuristics are very different. Why are they both called "Schulze method" ?
Thanks (please I'm french, write your answer in simple english). HB, 22 Jun 2006
- Both heuristics, the path heuristic and the Schwartz heuristic, have been proposed by Markus Schulze. Both heuristics describe the same method, in so far as they always find the same winner. As the properties of the Schulze method don't depend on the heuristic used, it makes sense simply to use the term "Schulze method" to refer to both heuristics. Markus Schulze 14:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- You wrote:
-
- Ils sont fous ces wikipediens!!! Déjà que Condorcet lui-même trouvait sa méthode compliquée. Avec Schulze méthode du chemin, c'est la prise de tête garantie. Je ne suis pas sûre que ceux qui ont voté pour Condorcet Schulze aient bien lu l'article en anglais, sinon ils auraient au moins posé la question "Schulze méthode du chemin (argh....) ou Schulze méthode Schwartz?"
- Both heuristics for the Schulze method always choose the same winner. Therefore, when an organization discusses whether the Schulze method should be adopted, there is no need to discuss which of these heuristics should be adopted. It is sufficient to say that the Schulze method should be adopted. Markus Schulze 06:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your very clear answers. HB, 24 Jun 2006
[edit] Heuristic + restructuralization of the article
I thing this is a very bad word leading to confusion (I will use the word algorithm instead, but may be there is something better). For the article to be written clearly I would suggest the following schema:
First paragraphs with general definition od SDD (roughly as it is now).
Than the paragraph which briefly sumarizes the ideas used to solve the circular ambiguities (I mean ideas common to all heuristics). I leave to discussion if more exact definition of the method should be included here (other than the equivalence to either of algorithms).
Than some sentence like: There are more algorithms which reach always identical results, therefore all of them can be refered as Shultze method. The algorithms are following:
Than subchapters describing all (both) algorithms in detail.
What do you think?
--Gorn 03:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Examples
In the Path Heuristic, there is a number in front of the ordering of the votes. "3 ABCED". Maybe I'm missing something, but the text doesn't seem to explain what those number are and what they mean, or at least it doesn't do so near the first example. I'd like to see that improved because it's interfering with my understanding of the explanation of the examples. Hu 07:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
