= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Peter_de_Blanc comments on Averaging value systems is worse than choosing one - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (56)
The formalism is important because the default assumption people use as to how CEV will be implemented is that it will be implemented by averaging value systems together.
I think that many people downvote anything containing a proof if they think that any step in the proof is wrong. But those downvotes aren't just interpreted by others as meaning "this proof is incorrect"; they're interpreted as meaning "this topic is unimportant" or "this approach is uninteresting".
My formalism is important, if for no other reason than because it is the only one addressing the question of averaging values together. It is the only work ever done on this particular critical step of CEV.
No it isn't. What about the entire field of voting theory?
I initially thought that it doesn't address the question of the value of the output of the system, but on reflection it does. So, I stand corrected.