Skip to main content

Timeline for Arrow's theorem and the postseason

Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0

12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
S May 7 at 6:01 history suggested The Amplitwist CC BY-SA 4.0
fixed broken link to Wikipedia
May 7 at 2:45 review Suggested edits
S May 7 at 6:01
May 17, 2013 at 12:00 answer added Waldemar timeline score: 5
Oct 3, 2010 at 5:11 answer added Ross Millikan timeline score: 0
Oct 3, 2010 at 1:35 comment added Tony Huynh Regarding (2), you probably want some sort of connectedness assumption on $G$. For example, consider the extreme case of $G$ being an independent set.
Oct 3, 2010 at 1:21 comment added Willie Wong Lastly, in view of Weak Independence, I think tactical losing can be rendered moot if you allow the output of $F$ to be just a set rather than an ordered list. And just draw the DE table randomly. Of course, some people will complain that it is "not fair"...
Oct 3, 2010 at 1:08 comment added Willie Wong More mathematical: does the Path-Independence condition imply that you can just use a weighted direct graph instead of a multigraph? Also, the proof that I know of Arrow's theorem uses pretty strongly that each elector produces an ordering on all candidates. So it seems to me that the result you are musing about will have to be proved in a much different way.
Oct 3, 2010 at 0:57 comment added Willie Wong Not mathematics per se, but note that your Weak Independence condition is already not compatible to the FIFA rules, where the ranking depends also on goal scored and against and comparison of such secondary information. So this already prevents some tactical losing (your second link).
Oct 2, 2010 at 22:54 comment added Peter McNamara It is easy to avoid this problem by not having a single-elimination format (eg Mcintyre system, in particular their final four and final five).
Oct 2, 2010 at 22:16 answer added Tony Huynh timeline score: 1
Oct 2, 2010 at 22:07 answer added TonyK timeline score: 2
Oct 2, 2010 at 21:58 history asked Harrison Brown CC BY-SA 2.5