roystgnr comments on Godel's Completeness and Incompleteness Theorems - Less Wrong

34 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 25 December 2012 01:16AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (85)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: roystgnr 31 December 2012 02:54:09AM *  2 points [-]

I'm fascinated by but completely failing to grasp your first comment. Specifically:

Suppose we:

  • Take a finite set FS of N voters
  • Define an infinite set IS of hypothetical voters, fully indexed by the positive integers, such that hypothetical vote n+1 is the same as real vote (n mod N)+1
  • Use a "non-principal ultrafilter" to resolve the result

Which of Arrow's criteria is violated when considering this to be a result of the votes in FS but not violated when considering this to be a result of the votes in IS?

Comment author: Qiaochu_Yuan 31 December 2012 03:38:20AM *  4 points [-]

Good question! It's dictatorship. In such a situation, any non-principal ultrafilter picks out one of the congruence classes and only listens to that one.

More generally, given any partition of an infinite set of voters into a finite disjoint union of sets, a non-principal ultrafilter picks out one member of the partition and only listens to that one. In other words, a non-principal ultrafilter disenfranchises arbitrarily large portions of the population. This is another reason it's not very useful for actually conducting elections!